jmmcd comments on Concepts Don't Work That Way - Less Wrong

57 Post author: lukeprog 28 September 2011 02:01AM

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

Comments (88)

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

Comment author: CG_Morton 27 September 2011 01:48:01PM 5 points [-]

I think this is a little unfair. For example, I know exactly what the category 'fish' contains. It contains eels and it contains flounders, without question. If someone gives me a new creature, there are things that I can do to ascertain whether it is a fish. The only question is how quickly I could do this.

We pattern-match on 'has fins', 'moves via tail', etc. because we can do that fast, and because animals with those traits are likely to share other traits like 'is billaterally symetrical' (and perhaps 'disease is more likely to be communicable from similarly shaped creatures'). But that doesn't mean the hard-and-fast 'fish' category is meaningless; there is a reason dolphins aren't fish.

Comment author: jmmcd 27 September 2011 02:37:41PM -1 points [-]

Good point. The initial experiment couldn't even have been carried out without the biological definition of the fish category. If I'm asked to rate various fish as more or less typical, on a scale of 1 to 10, then I'll give very different answers depending on whether 1 means "least typical of all biologically-defined fish" or "mammal" or "flower" or "pair of headphones".