The Categorization Imperative

[m_the0ry]

Categorical thinking is inescapable. It is the way the mind functions. In fact it is what makes us human and it is a direct consequence of intelligence. It is important now to make the distinction that all intelligence thinks categorically but not all categorical thinking is intelligent. Categorical thought is best analyzed in comparison to algorithmic thought. An algorithm is successful for a very specific problem (set). Categorical thought allows the expansion of the problem set for which a process results in success by use of pattern recognition.


It is without a doubt a double edged blade, however. This is where the darwinian process comes in. A creature that categorizes friends and foes alike will die off. One who categorizes all his own mistakes as 'acts of god' disempowers his self.

[aeest400]

One way to think about categorization is to consider Hume's claim that causal reasoning is based on a "constant conjunction" of events. Well, whatever we consider an event for the purpose of causal generalization has been categorized in some manner. Reasoning and science, I think, are basically efforts to make the categories we use as general, consistent, and empirically sound as possible. Science often tosses old categories, like aether or phlogiston, aside when they are no longer useful. And we may find that some categories, like electricity and magnetism, can be further unified under an even broader category without losing their explanatory and predictive role. Ultimately, scientific realism amount to the belief that we can form a set of categories that will carve nature at its joints.


Alternative views claim there is room for statements in various domains outside basic physics to be true or false, even if the categories we use do not correspond to some exact way the world is (e.g., theories in psychology or sociology for example). One problem with verificationism, or the belief we should be "precise" in all our categorical statements by tying them to some verifiable definition is that many categories that we think are precisely defined, such as "mother" or "female" (to use examples from Lakeoff), are actually ill defined at the fringes and labeling some entities as such can seen arbitrary.

[thylacine]

OP,
All of this is subsumed into the question of the boundary between thruth and falsity.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
many categories that we think are precisely defined, such as "mother" or "female" (to use examples from Lakeoff), are actually ill defined at the fringes and labeling some entities as such can seen arbitrary.

[/ QUOTE ]

At the level we operate the list takes in most things we refer to. The issue the OP raised is the claim of 'there is a category, therefore a 'point' boundary exists'. It's an argument used in topic and it comes in various guises.

Another version we read on these forums is the "it's the same because it hasn't crossed the boundary yet" in areas ( most macro areas) where the boundary is a blurred and arbitrary one and there are obvious differences in the two situations being compared. DS uses it in some of his 'inconsistency' formats. Phil153 used it in DS's "three statements" thread.

I wonder how ring species fit in those worldviews, I don't see how it can be visualized for them. According to both of the above versions of the boundary mess there can't be ring species.

luckyme

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
As our mood improves when do we switch from unhappy to happy? If I were rich, what amount exactly makes me so?

[/ QUOTE ]

aeeest beat me to the bulk of my response by bringing up Hume's idea of constant conjunction - but I just want to pick up on the above quickly.

It seems to me like this is a fallacy insofar as it does what we tend to do when we talk about the human urge, innate or otherwise, to categorize experience. It's pointing to the arbitrary nature of one category or process of categorization by referencing another solid one. DS does that a lot in defence of his utilitarian mantra.

If our categories really are arbitrary it doesn't make sense to pick at them like this. To ask, as in the example, when we switch from happiness to unhappiness, presupposes the distinction that's under attack - we need categorized notions of happiness and unhappiness to say there's no single point (as I'm sure luckyme is implying), or say there is. It's more or less impossible to attack the legitimacy of our tendency to categorise because we find ourselves using categories to do so.

The suggestion that categorization is an essential part of being human is about more than an observation that we invariably do it, it's a more fundamental claim that categorization is an integral part of reason.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
EVERY SINGLE possible category is fundamentally based on arbitrary boundaries. In general they are just useful to us and let us work faster and more efficiently.

Basically, you're right.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP.

[soon2bepro]

This is very true luckyme, but in my opinion it goes way beyond what you propose.

Consider what we know about the universe. Fundamentally it seems to be a large number of particles bumping against each other. This would include you, me, the milky way, everything. Whenever we think of anything, what we're doing is creating a category to separate a group of particles from the rest, so as to make it easier for us to understand their behaviour. Then we go on and look for similar groups of particles. Like when we think of two different meteorites, or stars, or humans, or whatever. As others pointed out here, we need to do this, because our mental capacity is way short of being able to compute the universe as the whole it really is. And I say compute because that's really what it is about, not thinking, computing. When calculations are way too complex, we use thinking to find a way around them.

We need the simplicity, but it comes at the cost of accuracy. We somewhat make up for this by using probabilistic projections.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
This is very true luckyme, but in my opinion it goes way beyond what you propose.

Consider what we know about the universe. Fundamentally it seems to be a large number of particles bumping against each other. This would include you, me, the milky way, everything. Whenever we think of anything, what we're doing is creating a category to separate a group of particles from the rest, so as to make it easier for us to understand their behaviour. Then we go on and look for similar groups of particles. Like when we think of two different meteorites, or stars, or humans, or whatever. As others pointed out here, we need to do this, because our mental capacity is way beyond being able to grasp the universe as the whole it really is.

[/ QUOTE ]

That we do it, that we need to do it, are not an issue directly. The OP deals only with the issue of a follow-up claim that because there is a category there is a clear boundary that surrounds it so that when that is crossed 'poof' the subject becomes a member of it. It's actually like trying to find THE edge of a marsh.

The OP doesn't make the reverse claim that because there are no clear boundaries there are no categories, which seems to be your concern.

luckyme

[soon2bepro]

No, my point is that there are no categories, we make them up, therefore boundaries are arbitrary by definition.

Btw, I did some editing while you were replying, apparently. (that was like 70 minutes replying time, but still [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
No, my point is that there are no categories, we make them up, therefore boundaries are arbitrary by definition.

Btw, I did some editing while you were replying, apparently. (that was like 70 minutes replying time, but still [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])

[/ QUOTE ]

No disagreement with the made up part.
Little disagreement with the arbitrary part, and not an issue in this thread.
Only focus is that -- on establishment of a category, it does not mean that they usually have delineated boundaries. Like a door to a house, where you are essentially in or out. Most boundaries ( arbitrary as they are) are like trying to find the edge of a fog bank, or worse. That does not mean the category is not useful.

luckyme