new research into semantic categories

Thu Feb 11 22:16:45 UTC 2010

>>
Rather, the three primitive questions
are:  "Can I eat it?  Can it give me shelter?  Can I mate with it?"<<

Well, you just have a dirty mind.

JJLL

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Joel S. Berson <Berson at att.net> wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       "Joel S. Berson" <Berson at ATT.NET>
> Subject:      Re: new research into semantic categories
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> If the researchers are saying that *one* of the ways *all* humans
> classify all non-human objects is the three of "Can I eat it? How do
> I hold it? Can it give me shelter?", then I will at least suspend
> judgement until I see additional confirming or refuting
> studies.  Further research may show that some humans do not classify
> objects this way. (I note that the article from The Tartan, "C-M's
> student newspaper," does not cite a publication in a peer-reviewed
> journal, although there may be one; it seems difficult to find out
> on-line.)
>
> But if the statement is that this is *the* (meaning only) way, then I
> still say, Stuff and Nonsense!  The article starts "Using functional
> magnetic resonance imaging ... members of the Center [at Carnegie
> Mellon] have gained deep insight into *the way* human brains
> categorize objects" (emphasis added).
>
> In the second paragraph, the article says "Their research has
> concluded that humans represent *all* non-human objects in terms of
> three classes or dimensions" (emphasis added).  Set aside the *all*,
> which I will suspend judgement on awaiting confirmatory
> evidence.  But the grammar leads me to understand this sentence as
> asserting that this is the *only* way humans represent objects, and
> that they classify objects in *only* three classes  The writer did
> not say "has concluded that *one way* humans represent all non-human
> objects", so I took it to be the only way.  Perhaps I have
> misunderstood the writer of the article, and the article writer may
> be misrepresenting the conclusion of the researchers.  But --
>
> The second paragraph continues: "[Neuroscientist Just] explained that
> when one sees an object, the brain thinks, 'Can I eat it? How do I
> hold it? Can it give me shelter?' Indeed, all concrete objects are
> represented in terms of these three dimensions, much in the way that
> all places in space are represented by the three dimensions that we
> experience every day."  This too reads as though the three are the
> *only* dimensions of objects.  The analogy with three-dimensional
> space is false-- Of course three-dimensional space has only three
> dimensions.  But non-human objects do not therefore have just three
> dimensions (three classes of properties).
>
> On another matter:  "Just feels that these dimensions point back to
> our evolutionary origins ... [he said] 'there are fundamental
> biological concerns with eating, usage, and shelter.'"  But those
> sound like the wrong three.*  Rather, the three primitive questions
> are:  "Can I eat it?  Can it give me shelter?  Can I mate with it?"
>
> * Note that when I say "the wrong three," someone may conclude that I
> mean all three are wrong.  I only mean that it is the wrong set of
> three -- just one is wrong.
>
> ("Three states of matter" is not a correct analogy either.  Liquid,
> solid, and gas are three values of a *single* property of matter, not
> three "dimensions" of matter.)
>
> Joel
>
> At 2/11/2010 03:40 PM, Jonathan Lighter wrote:
> >Exactly. It's the same as saying we recognize three everyday states of
> >matter: liquid, solid, gas.  Those are the most basic categories, but our
> >thinking about matter goes far beyond that general level of
> identification.
> >
> >JL
> >
> >On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Mark Mandel <thnidu at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> > > -----------------------
> > > Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> > > Poster:       Mark Mandel <thnidu at GMAIL.COM>
> > > Subject:      Re: new research into semantic categories
> > >
> > >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > No. Three categories, that are plausibly evolutionarily ancient, elicit
> > > reactions in distinct parts of the brain as seen by this fMRI study. We
> > > also
> > > "classify" people on sight by sex and age; does that statement imply
> that
> > > we
> > > make no other distinctions? I don't think so.
> > >
> > > The basic idea is that when a particular part of the brain is active,
> it
> > > > receives more blood, and the increased blood flow can be seen by MRI
> > > > machines. Researchers cannot directly tell what a person is thinking,
> but
> > > > they can tell where the thinking is happening and infer from there,
> since
> > > > certain parts of the brain are used for certain functions. In the
> context
> > > of
> > > > the research, it was found that objects belonging to a particular
> > > dimension
> > > > all triggered activity in a particular part of the brain.
> > > >
> > >
> > > m a m
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Joel S. Berson <Berson at att.net>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > At 2/8/2010 10:22 PM, James Harbeck wrote:
> > > > >http://thetartan.org/2010/2/8/scitech/brainnoun
> > > > >
> > > > >Some researchers at Carnegie Mellon have, with the aid of an MRI,
> > > > >come to the conclusion that human brains classify all non-human
> > > > >objects in terms of three dimensions: in plain, "Can I eat it? How
> do
> > > > >I hold it? Can it give me shelter?"
> > > >
> > > > Is this as nonsensical as it sounds to me?  The human brain can only
> > > > manage three properties for all non-human objects?  And two of those
> > > > properties are the simplest of "enumerated" data types, namely
> > > > "Boolean", which can take on only two values, "yes" or "no"?
> > > >
> > > > Apples are not red (usually), plums are not purple -- they are only
> > > > "eatable = 'yes'"!
> > > >
> > > > Any relational database system can do better than
> > > > that!  (Translating, "property" = column; "object" = "row".)
> > > >
> > > > Joel
> > > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >"If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the
> truth."
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------
> >The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>

--
"If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org