You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

atucker comments on Review of Machery, 'Doing Without Concepts' - Less Wrong Discussion

8 Post author: lukeprog 29 November 2011 11:22PM

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

Comments (11)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: atucker 30 November 2011 12:45:05AM 2 points [-]

What exactly is a prototype, exemplar, or theory? I have a vague notion of what's meant by those, but suspect that I'm missing something.

Comment author: lukeprog 30 November 2011 01:11:50AM 0 points [-]

I'd recommend reading the first part of the BBS article, which is Machery's precis of his own book.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 30 November 2011 04:04:11AM 2 points [-]

Having tried to read it, I get the idea that prototypes represent knowledge about a category of things in terms of typical properties of members of that categories (e.g. "dogs bark and pee on things"); whereas exemplars represent knowledge in terms of familiarity with individual members of the category (e.g. "dogs are like Fido and Lassie").

The description of theories seems substantially hazier:

Theories are bodies of causal, functional, generic, and nomological knowledge about categories, substances, types of events, and the like. A theory of dogs would consist of some such knowledge about dogs.

I'm having difficulty figuring out what this means.

Comment author: [deleted] 30 November 2011 05:26:49PM *  2 points [-]

I think that's meant to encompass the sort of "necessary and sufficient" rules-based reasoning that was originally associated with concepts-in-general. Whereas prototypes and exemplars denote fuzzy categories, theories are usually more straightforward.

At least, that's how I read it. Certainly, I would say that some human reasoning is of that form.

Comment author: atucker 30 November 2011 01:22:11AM -1 points [-]

Shweet, thanks!

Comment author: lukeprog 30 November 2011 01:43:02AM 1 point [-]

Also, exhibit 1,381 of "AI researchers doing better philosophy than philosophers" is Chris Thornton's recent A Mathematical Theory of Conceptual Representation.

Comment author: Zetetic 30 November 2011 06:42:17PM 0 points [-]

Many thanks, I've been looking for some carefully worked out ideas along this line of thought!

Comment author: prase 30 November 2011 01:03:25AM *  0 points [-]

What exactly is a concept, after all?

(The question is only half serious, but if somebody can comprehensibly define it and explain why such a word may be useful, it would be nice. I easily get lost among philosophical generalities and abstractions.)