cousin_it comments on The Featherless Biped - Less Wrong

1 Post author: Annoyance 02 September 2009 05:47PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (63)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: cousin_it 03 September 2009 09:05:26AM *  3 points [-]

So if I removed the lungs of chicken, you would no longer consider it a bird? Or if I surgically modified some other creature (e.g. a pig) to have circulatory lungs, you would consider this to be a bird?

Different people's concepts of "bird" agree on most real-world examples, but I see no reason why they should agree on all conceivable hypothetical examples, so the task of "defining" a word is futile.

Warrigal gave a good recognition algorithm: it inspects a small subset of properties and gives an answer that accords with our judgment in most real-world cases. That's about as far as one can or should go when "defining" something outside of mathematics.

Comment author: Nubulous 03 September 2009 09:40:09AM 0 points [-]

Warrigal gave a good recognition algorithm

Even though no bird, in the history of the world, has ever been recognised using it ?

Comment author: cousin_it 03 September 2009 10:37:56AM *  6 points [-]

When someone proposes a new algorithm, "this algorithm has never been used" doesn't sound to me like a valid critique. More substantively, Cuvier proposed similar outlandish-sounding algorithms tuned to recognizing animals by teeth and bone fragments, which have enjoyed widespread use ever since.

A small anecdote: one of Cuvier's students once dressed in a devil's costume and entered his room at night to scare him. Cuvier opened his eyes, said "Horns? Hooves? You can't eat me, you're a herbivore" and went back to sleep.

Comment author: CronoDAS 03 September 2009 03:27:15PM 0 points [-]

"Horns? Hooves? You can't eat me, you're a herbivore"

Heh.

Plenty of herbivores can still do serious damage when they're annoyed, though. ;)