Categories Are Meaningful

[coberst]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Categories Are Meaningful

Common sense or, as cognitive science labels it, folk theory informs us that “all things are a kind of thing”. All things have in common with other things certain characteristics; i.e. all things belong in categories with other like things. Things are categorized together based upon what they have in common. It might be worth while to think of category as being a container.

In classical or conventional terms we categorize things in accordance with what are regarded as being that which is essential to that kind of thing. All things that are essentially the same fall into the same category. What is essential to a tree is that which is necessary and sufficient for that thing to be classified as a tree. To categorize a thing, i.e. define a thing, is to give its essential characteristics.

In some way or another all creatures must categorize. At a minimum all creatures must distinguish friend from foe or eat and not eat. Categorization is part of the fundamental needs for survival of the creature. If the mouse mistakes a snake for a stick that mouse becomes toast; the same categorization problem applies to the lion and to the man.

Categorization is meaningful. Meaning is not a thing; something is meaningful for a creature only when there is an association between that thing and the creature. “Meaningfulness derives from the experience of functioning as a being of a certain sort in an environment of a certain sort.” It is meaningful to a soldier when s/he mistakenly categorizes a tank to be only a harmless tree or an enemy to be a friend.

There is nothing more meaningful for a creatures’ survival than correct categorization of the world in which that creature lives.

When does a human female egg fertilized by a human male sperm become a person?

Quotes from “Metaphors We Live By” George Lakoff and Mark Johnson

 

[Neuro-Dr]

Is this your political platform or are you asking if Defining Attribute theory is still the accepted theory on object catagorization?

 

[KellienComplex]

"Consider Wittgenstein's example of the concept of a game. There are clusters of attributes that characterize sets of games (that they involve pieces, involve balls, involve one or more players) but hardly any attribute holds in all the members of the concept. Members of the category game, like the faces of the members of a family, bear a family resemblance to one another, but they do not share a distinict set of necessary and sufficient attributes."

 

[KellienComplex]

Oh, and let's prohibit torture shall we.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I need to know the relevance of this as it pertains to a reasonable topic for this forum.......

 

[coberst]

Is this your political platform or are you asking if Defining Attribute theory is still the accepted theory on object catagorization?

The title is about the meaningfulness of categories. The question is to provide a vivid example of the meaningfulness of categorization.

Cognitive science has provided us with a new paradigm about consciousness. This new paradigm is focused upon helping us to understand how we think. Categorization is something all creatures do and thus if we can begin to comprehend how all animals create categories we can begin to comprehend how we conceive and perceive, i.e. how we think.

 

[coberst]

I need to know the relevance of this as it pertains to a reasonable topic for this forum.......

I think that cognitive science is relative to all domains of knowledge. Just as I think psychology is relative to all domains of knowledge. I think that we need to develop a broader base of understanding than we have now with such specialization in learning.

 

[Ollie123]

I too, am a bit confused as to why this is here. Is it a question? Or are you just posting your beliefs?

If its political I don't think it belongs here. This is not a place to have an abortion debate. I'm happy to discuss cognitive psychology, but it doesn't seem like there was an actual question in there so I have no idea what you want. Are you just looking for a discussion either agreeing with or ripping apart those ideas presented?

 

[coberst]

I too, am a bit confused as to why this is here. Is it a question? Or are you just posting your beliefs?

If its political I don't think it belongs here. This is not a place to have an abortion debate. I'm happy to discuss cognitive psychology, but it doesn't seem like there was an actual question in there so I have no idea what you want. Are you just looking for a discussion either agreeing with or ripping apart those ideas presented?

I think that we all are inclined to become too specialized in our knowledge and thus to develop a very narrow view of reality. My OP is to help the reader to become conscious of an important idea that will help broaden his or her domain of comprehension.

 

[Anon15]

OK this might be a stretch but I suppose this thread could be a mechanism to discuss the categorical vs. dimensional debate surrounding the DSM.

 

[Neuro-Dr]

OK, I think there are/have been a number of studies in the area of catagorizations from DA to Exemplar and a number of fMRI studies on conceptual catagorization from those defined by experience and/or prototypes. I'm not sure what this has to do with animal models since we don't know any other animal other than potentially apes that have the underlying neuroanatomy to support consciousness as you define it. Your posts argues semantics more than anything and that is what I struggled with when reading it. I guess my impression is that you are couching a political message into something that seems at the surface to be related to neuroscience but is not. There is not a theory of cognitive neuroscience I am aware of that would say that fertilized zygotes would be classified as or not as human based on a theory of consciouseness or conceptual catagorization. Your posts speaks to belief systems, which while taking place in the brain, are not spontaneously developed like consciousness.