Ben_Jones comments on Superexponential Conceptspace, and Simple Words - Less Wrong

28 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 24 February 2008 11:59PM

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

Comments (12)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Ben_Jones 25 February 2008 03:14:00PM 1 point [-]

Unknown - pretty much, yeah. I just wanted to use the words 'Vanadium' and 'Sparg'.

Obvious counter: utility is subjective, the joints in reality (by definition!) aren't. So categorisation based on 'stuff we want' or 'stuff we like' can go any way you want and doesn't have to fall along reality's joints. There is a marked distinction between these and the type of (objective?) categories that fit in with the world.

If I am searching for a black-haired, green-eyed person to be in my movie, I have a motive for using the word Wiggin. However, the existence of the word Wiggin doesn't reflect a natural group of Things in Thingspace, and hence doesn't have any bearing on my expectations. Just as the coining of a word meaning 'red flower' wouldn't be a reflection of any natural grouping in Thingspace - flowers can be lots of colours, and lots of things are red. Sound good?