tjhorton@utai.UUCP (06/24/87)
--------------- recap on ----------------------------------------------- In article <6721@diamond.BBN.COM> aweinste@Diamond.BBN.COM (Anders Weinstein) writes [in reply to someone]: > > Conceptual combination allows us to go > >from 'tomato' and 'juice' to 'tomato juice'. I assume there is no > >argument that this new category may be acquired, sight unseen, > >by symbolic processing. Presumably there must be atomic=primitive > >concepts, however, and where do these come from? It must be > >by a process different from that usable to acquire the concept > >'tomato juice'. > >Of course *some* concepts can be acquired by definition. However, the >"classical empiricist" doctrine is committed to the further idea that there >is some priveleged set of *purely sensory* concepts and that all non-sensory >concepts can be defined in terms of this basis. [...] If you regard "juice" >as a "primitive" concept, then you do not share the classical doctrine. >(And if you do not, I invite you try giving necessary and sufficient >conditions for juicehood.) --------------- recap off ---------------------------------------------- The first gentleperson did not say anything about definition (or did s/he?) When/why/how would I ever need a "definition" in order to learn something? Does a male mosquito need a "definition" of "female mosquito?" Yet its "concept" of "female mosquito" most surely isn't a definition that I would accept - just how to recognize one plus what gets done about it, in *his* terms. Now, the mosquito's concept of a particular female presumably depends on some innate mechanisms (so does mine! so does mine!) but the point is, he needs no DEFINITION for "this particular female mosquito". Do I need a "definition" of magnetism to have the concept? There isn't even a half baked *theory* for it, and certainly not a definition. What does magnetism mean to me? Not much more than a "force" which selective- ly pulls certain kinds of metals together. And I happen to know that super- conducting material repels magnets - drop a magnet over a superconductor and it will stay suspended in mid-air (I know it's true. I saw it on TV. :-) Does this constitute a definition that would satisy the perspective of an omniscent god? Have I not learned a concept for magnetism? Do concepts require necessary and sufficient conditions? If they do, then I better give back my engineering degree :-) Timothy J Horton, Dept Comp Sci, UofToronto, <tjhorton@utai> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world, the unreasonable man adapts the world to himself, therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -- George Bernard Shaw --------------------------------------------------------------------------
aweinste@Diamond.BBN.COM (Anders Weinstein) (06/30/87)
In article <3971@utai.UUCP> tjhorton@ai.UUCP (Timothy J. Horton) writes: >> > Conceptual combination allows us to go >> >from 'tomato' and 'juice' to 'tomato juice'. I assume there is no >> >argument that this new category may be acquired, sight unseen, >> >by symbolic processing. ... >> >>Of course *some* concepts can be acquired by definition. ... > >The first gentleperson did not say anything about definition (or did s/he?) >When/why/how would I ever need a "definition" in order to learn something? The definitional view was the original issue here; it was mentioned (and disparaged) by me in an earlier posting which you do not quote. It is quite tempting to suppose that all complex concepts *must* have implicit definitions in terms of some atomic ones, even if the definitions are largely unconscious. However, it is also fair to say that philosophy has spent two thousand years searching for implicit definitions of concepts without any conspicuous success. What to make of this failure is an interesting issue. Anders Weinstein BBN Labs