�

[coberst]

“The Role of Categorization in Truth”

 

We must categorize to live. We categorize that which is meaningful for us. We categorize things and actions; some categories emerge directly from experience. The categories emerging from experience are dependent upon the nature of our bodies and the environment in which we are placed. There are natural dimensions to our categories of objects: a perceptual dimension depends upon our senses, a movement dimension is dependent upon the motor characteristics of our hands and legs, and likewise there are functional and purposive dimensions.

 

Our categories for objects, events, activities, and all kinds of experiences are gestalts, i.e. a complex array combined together in some coherent fashion constituting a functional unit.

 

“A categorization is a natural way of identifying a kind of object or experience by highlighting certain properties, downplaying others, and hiding others.” When we categorize an object we highlight some properties and push to the background certain other properties.

 

I’ve invited a sexy blond to the party.

I’ve invited a ballerina to the party.

I’ve invited a conservative to the party.

I’ve invited a lesbian to the part.

 

All of these properties are characteristics of the same person. I can highlight any one of these properties and can be talking about the same person. Every true statement I might make about this person leaves out something important about this person.

 

The natural dimensions of categories, i.e. the perceptual, functional, etc., are a function of how the world interacts with that person. Likewise we categorize in the same way. The properties that determine the ones we use to categorize are not necessarily the properties of the object but are the properties that interact with the world.

 

“It follows from this that true statements made in terms of human categories typically do not predicate properties of objects in themselves but rather interactional properties that make sense only relative to human functioning.”

 

What this shows is that truth is dependent upon categorization in four ways: 1) the truth of a statement is relative to some comprehension of it; 2) comprehension always involves human categorization; 3) the truth of a statement is relative to the properties highlighted; and 4) categories are not fixed, they are defined by prototypes.

 

Light consists of particles. Light consists of waves. These are just two of a potpourri of celebrated examples to “show that sentences, in general are not true or false independent of human purposes.”

 

How might a teacher categorize Italy to her class examining a globe looking for various countries?

 

Quotes from “Metaphors We Live By” Lakoff and Johnson

[fresco]

Quote:

We must categorize to live

 

 

No !

 

There is the observer domain, and there is the domain of the individual and these do not ontologically intersect even when the individual is itself an observer. Categorization lies in the domain of the observer and is an aspect of languing (i.e the act of using language). "Properties" also lie in that domain as expectancies of future interactions, not aspects of "things in themselves".

 

But from the point of view of the individual (organism) engaged in "the life process", there are no "experiences" other than "perturbations" to which "adaptations" are selectively made. There is merely distinction here , NOT "categorization". There are no "perceptions" or "sense data" and there are no "purposes"....such terms are confined the domain of the oberver.

 

Lakoff makes the mistake of confusing domains. "Life" is not confined to

to "categorizing" observers.

[coberst]

Quote:

"Life" is not confined to

to "categorizing" observers.

 

I agree

[fresco]

Coberst,

 

If you agree, then much of Lakoff can be "dumped" !

 

For example statements like ......

 

"The properties that determine the ones we use to categorize are not necessarily the properties of the object but are the properties that interact with the world."

 

....are complete gibberish.

 

There are no "objects" existing independently of a communicative interaction between languaging observers !"Things" require "thingers", and this applies for all "things" including "brains" or "sense data". That is why "perception" ultimately fails to yield to what we call "normal science", since the the latter tacitly assumes an "independent reality" of its focal objects. Kuhn argued that even for normal science such "reality" boiled down to shifting paradigms of consensus aimed at "prediction and control".

[HydrogenBond]

Categorization is more indicative of the right hemisphere, which tends to combine things into similar types. The left hemisphere is more differential and would like to separate all this compatibility into differences.

 

Let me give an example. The color yellow is stored in the right hemisphere as sort of a type or category. Even if we see a yellow shade we have never seen before, which has no left hemisphere name, one can still know it is a shade of yellow. The left hemisphere gets this insight from the right. It then has a platform by which is will try to back reason this conclusion. In other words, one already knows the answer. But left hemisphere protocol will require that you reach the same conclusion but with rational steps.

 

But there is something to be said of this slower process. If the right hemisphere categories are not the same for two people, one may see tan and the other may see yellow. They will argue until the cows come home since these are both valid right categories. The slower left step helps settle the subjectivity by reasoning what is the dominant wavelength. This more exact conclusion is forwarded integrated into the right categories so it ends up in the correct place. The next, time the hunch is a more accurate starting point of left hemisphere reasoning to begin.

[jedaisoul]

Every true statement I might make about this person leaves out something important about this person.

In theory this statement is false:

• If I knew everything important about someone.
  
• If I put all the important things I know about that person in one sentence,
  
• Then I would not have left out anything important about that person.

However, there are a number of limitations which make it virtually impossible to do that in practice. So iIf you had said "In practice...", I'd agree. However, as an all-inclusive statement, it is incorrect.

 

The natural dimensions of categories, i.e. the perceptual, functional, etc., are a function of how the world interacts with that person. Likewise we categorize in the same way. The properties that determine the ones we use to categorize are not necessarily the properties of the object but are the properties that interact with the world.

I'm not sure I agree with this. For example, you may consider the color of an object to be a property of it. It isn't. The property of the object is the ability to selectively absorb light, so that the light reflected (or transmitted) is predominantly of one color. But:

• If the light is already of that color, it will not change.
  
• If that color is absent from the light, the object will appear black.

So the color you see is a property of the reflected light, which may, or may not, be due to the object reflecting the light. In that sense, it is true that "The properties that determine the ones we use to categorize are not necessarily the properties of the object but are the properties that interact with the world". But I would suggest that this is an incorrect, though common, usage of the term "property". I.e. It is only true because the word "property" is being misused. So if the word is used correctly, the properties that we use to categorize an object are properties of the object.

 

Similarly, distance is not a property of an object. So if an object is said to be "distant", there is an implied other object (possibly yourself) that it is distant from. Distance is a relationship between objects, not a property of an object.

 

On the other hand, the hardness of an object is an objective property of the object, due to it's molecular structure. But even then, a description of an object as being hard or soft is a relative term. So it is important to distinguish between a property of an object, and a description of that property.

 

How much, if any, of this was intented to be implied by your statement?

 

“It follows from this that true statements made in terms of human categories typically do not predicate properties of objects in themselves but rather interactional properties that make sense only relative to human functioning.”

I do not agree, see above.

 

What this shows is that truth is dependent upon categorization in four ways: 1) the truth of a statement is relative to some comprehension of it; 2) comprehension always involves human categorization; 3) the truth of a statement is relative to the properties highlighted; and 4) categories are not fixed, they are defined by prototypes.

No.

1) Your perception of the truth, or otherwise, of a statement is dependent on your comprehension. If you misunderstand a statement then you may rightly criticise what you understood as being wrong, but that does not make the original statement wrong. You have simply misunderstood it!!!

2) Agreed.

3) No, because 1) is false.

4) Agreed, except, what meaning are you ascribing to "prototypes", and in what way do they differ from "categories"?

 

Light consists of particles. Light consists of waves. These are just two of a potpourri of celebrated examples to “show that sentences, in general are not true or false independent of human purposes.”

No. That is a very special case where the actual properties of the object (light) are indeterminate. In certain circumstances light appears to behave as a wave, in others as a particle. Material objects do not suffer this duality, therefore it is incorrect to generalise from light to other objects.

 

So it can be argued that the distinction between the "properties of objects in themselves" and "interactional properties" arises from a common, but incorrect, usage of the term "properties". If that is so, then the argument for the role of categorisation in truth fails. Do you agree? If not, what flaw do you see in the logic I gave to arrive at this conclusion?

[coberst]

Jedaisoul

 

Responding to your reply becaomes a bit overwhelming. I am trying but it is perhaps a bit disconnected.

 

 

 

My statement is directed at the objectivist notion that to categorize is to supply that which is necessary and sufficient. [b/]Every true statement I might make about this person leaves out something important about this person.[/b]

 

Consider the syllogism ‘All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; ergo Socrates is mortal’. Further consider the metaphor ‘CATEGORY IS CONTAINER’. The objectivist would use this metaphor together with the assumption that these containers boundaries are well-defined together with tautology of formal logic ‘P or not-P’ to conclude that categories can be specified as necessary and sufficient conditions.

 

These rationalist assumptions turn out to be, surprise-surprise, just that, assumptions! The world does not come with well-defined stuff.

 

 

]b]Light is not a color. Light is the reality that we create in our mind and is a result of many human interactions with the photons we encounter.[/b]

 

“Our experience of color is created by a combination of four factors: wavelengths of reflected light, lighting conditions, and two aspects of our bodies: (1) the three kinds of color cones in our retinas, which absorb light of long, medium, and short wavelengths, and (2) the complex neural circuitry connected to those cones.”

 

One physical property of the surface of the object matters for color: its reflectance (the percentage of high-, medium- and low-frequency light that the object reflects). The actual wavelength reflected by the object do not remain constant it depends upon ambient light, yet the color remains relatively constant. “Color, then, is not just the perception of wavelength; color constancy depends on the brain’s ability to compensate for variations in the light source.”

 

Visible light is electromagnetic radiation like radio waves within a certain frequency spectrum. When the electromagnetic radiation impinges on the cones in our retina we perceive color. Color perception is the result of four interacting factors: “lighting conditions, wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, color cones, and neural processing.”

 

Colors are not objective nor are they purely subjective. “Color is created jointly by our biology and the world, not by our culture.” Color results from the interaction of biology and the world. “We have the color concepts we do because the physical limitations constraining evolution gave evolutionary advantages to beings with a color system that enabled them to function well in crucial respects.”

 

 

 

 

I would say that truth is not something that exists independent of human interaction. Truth is not an objective reality. Truth is a creation of the human brain. Objectivity is shared subjectivity. Objective truth is a misnomer there is only shared truth/false and there is only shared good/bad.

 

 

 

 

 

Is light not a material object? It seems to me that light is the result of photons hitting the cones of the human eye. These photons are matter in my understanding of such matters.

 

I shall have to delay discussion of prototypes because that is something I am trying to prepare but will take me awhile to develop.

[fresco]

Colors are not objective nor are they purely subjective. “Color is created jointly by our biology and the world

[fresco]

Colors are not objective nor are they purely subjective. “Color is created jointly by our biology and the world

 

Well said coberst, you are making sense ! Note however that an infinite regress rears its head when you similarly focus on "our biology" or "the world".

i.e. "Our biology" is created by.....? It is at that point that "domains of observation" become relevent. (Maturana).

[HydrogenBond]

The natural dimensions of categories, i.e. the perceptual, functional, etc., are a function of how the world interacts with that person. Likewise we categorize in the same way. The properties that determine the ones we use to categorize are not necessarily the properties of the object but are the properties that interact with the world.

 

Perception is not always objective to the properties of the object or even how it interacts with the world. For example, if we take the average dog sitting there, some will see a nice dog and others will see a potential threat to their very life, if they have a fear of dogs. The data input is exactly the same going into both sensory systems. Somewhere between input and the filter of perception, the data is interpreted in two different ways.

 

Another more complicated example is a political candidate giving a speech. One person is in awe and another interprets the same data input with a sense of contempt. Another sees goods point and bad points, etc. The data and the actions of the speaker are exactly the same for all.

 

Even on any given day, one can alter their data perception. If one is in love the audio data from singing birds is nature's music. If they just got fired and are angry the same audio data is now noise pollution. This is significant in that the filter of a mood will affect reality perception.

 

A practical example of this affect is global warming. The emotion that is induced and most active is fear. This mood is the filter by which the data is going to be interpreted. People without that fear will see the data differently because their filter causes the same input data to register differently. That is the problem with emotional thinking. The emotion will set the ambience by which the data will be interpreted. The interpretation will be consistent with the mood, so most will feel this is the correct interpretation. Add another ambience filter and the same data looks differently.

[coberst]

Hydrogen

 

Words evoke schemas.

 

Words have meaning for us only within a context that is meaningful. At some time in my life plants have become meaningful to me and thus the word “bloom” evokes that meaning; likewise “traveler” with journey and “ashes” with fire.

 

“Because words can evoke schemas, and metaphors map schemas into other schemas, words can prompt a metaphorical understanding.”

 

Poets use metaphor to convey meaning. Cognitive scientists study metaphor to comprehend the hidden aspects of the human mind. To understand poetic metaphor one must understand conventional metaphor. To study metaphor is to discover that “one has a worldview, that one’s imagination is constrained, and that metaphor plays an enormous role in shaping one’s everyday understand of everyday events.”

 

As creatures we perceive our self as a container having an interior and exterior with a boundary between. We experience our bodies as structured wholes with identifiable parts. We move about in space to achieve our needs and desires; sometimes our path is obstructed by objects that we try to eliminate or move around.

 

“Each of these quite basic interactions with the world is generalizable, and each is in fact generalized across a series of other domains. Each of these generalizations is a recurring structure or repeatable pattern by which we are able to understand the world as a unified place that we can make a sense of.”

Quotes from “A Clearing in the Forest: Law, Life, and Mind” by Steven L. Winter

 

Our brain’s capacity to recognize patterns and form concepts of these structures makes our bodily experiences possible. These basic structures are called image-schemas—our sense of BALANCE, PART-WHOLE, OBJECT, SOURCE-PATH-GOAL, FORCE-BARRIOR, and CONTAINER—they provide “unity and determinacy in our interaction with the world…they say nothing about the nature of the world itself…Image-Schemas are neither representations nor literal pictures.”

 

 

Quotes from the usual suspect PHIF

[jedaisoul]

Responding to your reply becaomes a bit overwhelming. I am trying but it is perhaps a bit disconnected.

Perhaps it would help if you dealt with the specific points I made individually, to build up a picture. That is how I approached your post. It would also help me, and, I suspect, others, if you quoted the passage of my post that you were replying to.

 

My statement is directed at the objectivist notion that to categorize is to supply that which is necessary and sufficient. [b/]Every true statement I might make about this person leaves out something important about this person.[/b]

 

Consider the syllogism ‘All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; ergo Socrates is mortal’. Further consider the metaphor ‘CATEGORY IS CONTAINER’. The objectivist would use this metaphor together with the assumption that these containers boundaries are well-defined together with tautology of formal logic ‘P or not-P’ to conclude that categories can be specified as necessary and sufficient conditions.

 

These rationalist assumptions turn out to be, surprise-surprise, just that, assumptions! The world does not come with well-defined stuff.

This is just a re-statement of your position. It does not deal with my comments that, in principle, it is possible to state everything important about an individual in a single sentence, given only that "everything important about an individual" is knowable, and known to you.

 

On the other hand, if everything important about an individual is not knowable or known, then the statement "every statement I might make about this person leaves out something important about this person" is simply a truism. You cannot state that which you do not know.

 

So, I would suggest that your statement is either false or a truism.

 

Light is the reality that we create in our mind and is a result of many human interactions with the photons we encounter.

No. Light is not a "reality that we create in our mind". It is an objective physical reality. Our perception of light is a reality that we create in our mind.

 

I would say that truth is not something that exists independent of human interaction. Truth is not an objective reality. Truth is a creation of the human brain.

This is partially true. Abstract ideas originate in the mind, but their truth is not dependent on that. 1 + 1 = 2 is true irrespective of the person, or even whether there is any person, aware of it. Note: It is dependent on the number base in use (1 + 1 = 10 in binary), but that is simply a different representation of the same abstract truth.

 

Also, this does not answer the core of my comment, which was about your claim:

3) the truth of a statement is relative to the properties highlighted

This is not true. The truth of a statement is not dependent upon the categorisation. If the listener/reader uses different categorisation from the author, then the truth (or otherwise) of the statement perceived by the reader tells us nothing about the truth of the original statement. They are different statements.

[jedaisoul]

Our brain’s capacity to recognize patterns and form concepts of these structures makes our bodily experiences possible.

Uh, no! Surely you meant "Our brain’s capacity to recognize patterns and form concepts of these structures makes our mental experiences possible"?

 

Our bodily experieces, (being hit by an object, light entering the eye, etc...) precede our perception of them. Toddlers who have no concept of the dangers that surround them will still be harmed by events that occur.

[fresco]

Perception is not always objective to the properties of the object or even how it interacts with the world. For example, if we take the average dog sitting there, some will see a nice dog and others will see a potential threat to their very life, if they have a fear of dogs. The data input is exactly the same going into both sensory systems. Somewhere between input and the filter of perception, the data is interpreted in two different ways.

 

 

Hydrogenbond,

 

You are half way there.

 

There is no such thing as "objectivity". Perception is active not passive.There is no such thing as "data" independent of observer purposes.To paraphrase Heisenberg "we never perceive the world ...only the results of our actions upon it." Note that "unexpected events" are actively interpreted after the perturbation (if the observer survives.)

 

All features of what we call "external reality" are nodes of consensus within a "languaging" process. To "observe" is to "language". The argument that animals "perceive" without language is a psychological sleight of hand. It is we who are defining a "cat" chasing a "mouse". All we can validly say about what the cat "experiences" is "a perturbation of its internal organization which triggers an adaptation which humans call chasing". There may no "mice" from a cat's point of view, only "triggers for chasing".

[coberst]

Jed...

 

Uh, no! Surely you meant "Our brain’s capacity to recognize patterns and form concepts of these structures makes our mental experiences possible"?

 

Our bodily experieces, (being hit by an object, light entering the eye, etc...) precede our perception of them. Toddlers who have no concept of the dangers that surround them will still be harmed by events that occur.

 

Au contraire, I do mean “Our brain’s capacity to recognize patterns and form concepts of these structures makes our bodily experiences possible.”

 

Our bodily experiences are possible because our brain makes it possible by organizing our ability to perceive and to move about. An important element of the embodied experience is that the same neural network that makes up our sensorimotor actions is part of the neural system that makes conception and perception possible.

 

 

 

 

This is just a re-statement of your position. It does not deal with my comments that, in principle, it is possible to state everything important about an individual in a single sentence, given only that "everything important about an individual" is knowable, and known to you.

 

On the other hand, if everything important about an individual is not knowable or known, then the statement "every statement I might make about this person leaves out something important about this person" is simply a truism. You cannot state that which you do not know.

 

So, I would suggest that your statement is either false or a truism.

 

Originally Posted by coberst

My statement is directed at the objectivist notion that to categorize is to supply that which is necessary and sufficient. Every true statement I might make about this person leaves out something important about this person.

 

Consider the syllogism ‘All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; ergo Socrates is mortal’. Further consider the metaphor ‘CATEGORY IS CONTAINER’. The objectivist would use this metaphor together with the assumption that these containers boundaries are well-defined together with tautology of formal logic ‘P or not-P’ to conclude that categories can be specified as necessary and sufficient conditions.

 

These rationalist assumptions turn out to be, surprise-surprise, just that, assumptions! The world does not come with well-defined stuff.

 

I do not agree that my statement is false nor do I think that it is too obvious to mention.

 

 

 

 

No. Light is not a "reality that we create in our mind". It is an objective physical reality. Our perception of light is a reality that we create in our mind.

 

I disagree. Light is a reality that we create in our mind. I would say that reality comes in two forms: the thing-in-itself that Kant talks about, which we cannot know and that which we create in our brain. I think that the thing that you call “an objective physical reality” is what Kant calls the thing-in-itself and which we cannot know.

 

 

This is partially true. Abstract ideas originate in the mind, but their truth is not dependent on that. 1 + 1 = 2 is true irrespective of the person, or even whether there is any person, aware of it. Note: It is dependent on the number base in use (1 + 1 = 10 in binary), but that is simply a different representation of the same abstract truth.

 

I do not agree with your concept of truth. I see no reason why we should go on beating that poor horse. We should just agree to disagree.

 

The rest of our disagreements are a result of our disagreement regarding this matter of truth. We should just recognize this basic difference and move on

[jedaisoul]

Au contraire, I do mean “Our brain’s capacity to recognize patterns and form concepts of these structures makes our bodily experiences possible.”

Then how do you explain the recent incident where a baby was so severly scalded by an exploding hot water tank that it died? The baby had no concept of hot water tanks, nor of their potential capacity to explode. Yet it was enveloped in boiling water and died. This is a real tradgedy, but it's also a vivid example the the universe exists outside our perception of it, and our bodily interactions precede our awareness of them. How does your philosophy explain that?

 

I do not agree that my statement is false nor do I think that it is too obvious to mention.

That is a statement of your opinion, not an answer to the specific reasons I gave for those conclusions. If you cannot justify your claims, then you should say so.

 

I disagree. Light is a reality that we create in our mind. I would say that reality comes in two forms: the thing-in-itself that Kant talks about, which we cannot know and that which we create in our brain. I think that the thing that you call “an objective physical reality” is what Kant calls the thing-in-itself and which we cannot know.

Your definition of light is totally contrary to accepted physics. It is also contrary to the quote you made. In Kant's terminology, light is a part of "the thing-in-itself". Our perception of light is part of the "reality we create in our brain". Kant acknowledged that the "thing-in-itself" exists apart from the "reality we create in our brain".

 

I do not agree with your concept of truth. I see no reason why we should go on beating that poor horse. We should just agree to disagree. The rest of our disagreements are a result of our disagreement regarding this matter of truth. We should just recognize this basic difference and move on

No. There is are real flaws in your argument. Firstly, there is a flaw in your statement:

The properties that determine the ones we use to categorize are not necessarily the properties of the object but are the properties that interact with the world.

The properties of the object are the properties that interact with the world. It is our perception of the world which may differ from objective reality. This completely undermines your statement about the role of categorisation in truth:

What this shows is that truth is dependent upon categorization in four ways: 1) the truth of a statement is relative to some comprehension of it; 2) comprehension always involves human categorization; 3) the truth of a statement is relative to the properties highlighted...

I repeat my comments:

1) Your perception of the truth, or otherwise, of a statement is dependent on your comprehension. If you misunderstand a statement then you may rightly criticise what you understood as being wrong, but that does not make the original statement wrong. You have simply misunderstood it!!!

2) Agreed.

3) No, because 1) is false.

 

Secondly, there is the point referred to at the begining of this post.

 

Coberst, it is perfectly legitimate for you to have your beliefs, but not to claim they give an insight into the nature of truth if contrary points are made that you cannot answer. As far as I can see, your position is indefensible. It flies in the face of science, and common sense. It is not even supported by the quote you made from Kant. I hope I'm not being overly harsh, but I do not feel that it is appropriate to say that we should just recognize this as a basic difference of opinion and move on. I hope that you will take these comments in the manner they are meant. I applaud your desire to learn, and to spread that learning to others, but I think you need to reconsider your understanding of these matters.

[coberst]

jed...

 

Then how do you explain the recent incident where a baby was so severly scalded by an exploding hot water tank that it died? The baby had no concept of hot water tanks, nor of their potential capacity to explode. Yet it was enveloped in boiling water and died. This is a real tradgedy, but it's also a vivid example the the universe exists outside our perception of it, and our bodily interactions precede our awareness of them. How does your philosophy explain that?

 

My philosophy cannot explain this. I suspect it would take biology to explain this happening.

 

That is a statement of your opinion, not an answer to the specific reasons I gave for those conclusions. If you cannot justify your claims, then you should say so.

 

This is not a statement of my opinion. It is a statement of my judgment after studying several books on cognitive science.

 

Your definition of light is totally contrary to accepted physics. It is also contrary to the quote you made. In Kant's terminology, light is a part of "the thing-in-itself". Our perception of light is part of the "reality we create in our brain". Kant acknowledged that the "thing-in-itself" exists apart from the "reality we create in our brain".

 

I have spent many hours studying physics while obtaining an engineering degree and my statements are based upon that and especially upon Richard Feynman’s book “QED”.

 

 

 

 

 

There is are real flaws in your argument. Firstly, there is a flaw in your statement:

 

I think that we should just accept our differences regarding the meaning of truth and move on.