Women, Fire and Dangerous Things...

I suppose Lakoff might object that I am trying to interpret his book using classical ideas when I ought to adopt his theories on faith alone.

Well, I suppose I can try. To do that I must attempt to understand what he means by the classical theory. So we must find a prototype for the word classical for which the statement "From the time of Aristotle to the later work of Wittgenstein, categories were thought be well understood and unproblematic" is true.

That in itself is a tall order, since clearly Aristotle, Plotinus, Porphyry, Kant and Peirce seem to disagree with each other. But if we add in the following the task seems impossible...

Thought is the mechanical manipulation of abstract symbols.
The mind is an abstract machine, manipulating symbols essentially in the way a computer does, that is, by algorithmic computation.
Symbols (e.g., words and mental representations) get their meaning via correspondences to things in the external world. All meaning is of this character.

~ page xii.

For it is far from clear what sort of mechanical manipulation Aristotle might have had in mind. What sort of computer might he have had in mind? History gives us few answers to that inquiry. There is the abacus, I suppose...

In spite or these problems, I suppose I should continue on my search for a prototype for the classical theory that might be of use.

As we look further into Lakoff's claims we see the following...

Machines that do no more than mechanically manipulate symbols that correspond to things in the world are capable of meaningful thought and reason.

~ page xiii.

Such a statement is bewildering, since it requires one to suppose that Aristotle, Plotinus, Porphyry, Kant, Peirce and others in between thought in such terms. Yet that supposition appears most doubtful.

Computers don't do that anyway, in spite of appearances. Computers add up & subtract 0's & 1's and that's all they do.

Yes it could manipulate symbols in the sense you could enter info & extract answers, just like our computers do. It was far more complex than an abacus & experts think there is nothing anywhere near as complex for at least 1000 years after the device went to the sea floor.

So there were complex mechanisms & a lot of knowledge around a long time before we thought possible & that we are only finding out about in recent times.

Personally I do not believe that computers do anything remotely similar. But Lakoff seems to have said that to be part of the classical theory. Since I am looking for a prototype for his classical theory, I must hypothetically imagine Aristotle, Plotinus, etc. to have believed that.

In any event, the Antikythera device appears to be a mere analog device and not a real computer. The link you provided asserts that the device was used to trace planetary motions.

Tycho Brahe and others built many such devices without having any real idea of the laws of motion. The very shape of the Antikythera device strongly suggests that it was just another attempt to convert circular motion into the planetary motions. Such a device might well have been constructed by simple trial and error.

As such I can not imagine it to have inspired Aristotle, Plotinus and others. Thus it would not serve me as a useful prototype for Lakoff's 'classical theory.'

In spite or these problems, I suppose I should continue on my search for a prototype for the classical theory that might be of use.

As we look further into Lakoff's claims we see the following...

Machines that do no more than mechanically manipulate symbols that correspond to things in the world are capable of meaningful thought and reason.

~ page xiii.

Such a statement is bewildering, since it requires one to suppose that Aristotle, Plotinus, Porphyry, Kant, Peirce and others in between thought in such terms. Yet that supposition appears most doubtful.

Yet things get worse. According to Lakoff we must leave behind a number of familiar ideas...

• Meaning is based on truth and reference; it concerns the relationship between symbols and things in the world.[/*:m:1hjltawl]
• Biological species are natural kinds, defined by common essential properties.[/*:m:1hjltawl]
• The mind is separate from, and independent of, the body.[/*:m:1hjltawl]
• Emotion has no conceptual content.[/*:m:1hjltawl]
• Grammar is a matter of pure form.[/*:m:1hjltawl]
• Reason is transcendental, in that it transcends--goes beyond--the way human beings, or any other kinds of beings, happen to think. It concerns the inferential relationships among all possible concepts in this universe or any other. Mathematics is a form of transcendental reason.[/*:m:1hjltawl]
• There is a correct, God's eye view of the world--a single correct way of understanding what is and is not true.[/*:m:1hjltawl]
• All people think using the same conceptual system.[/*:m:1hjltawl]

~ page 9.

Perhaps some of these ideas must be abandoned. Perhaps some should be held. It is not my intent to argue the point at this time. My intent is to focus on these ideas in my attempt to determine a prototype for Lakoff's Classical Theory. For some of the thinkers "from the time of Aristotle to the later work of Wittgenstein" held these ideas, some did not.

At this point I would also note that the above statements go far beyond the categories, themselves, and refer to reality beyond mere categorization and language. Whether it is possible to draw such a conclusion from the evidence provided by linguistics is far from clear.

[journyman161]

In any event, the Antikythera device appears to be a mere analog device and not a real computer. The link you provided asserts that the device was used to trace planetary motions.

Tycho Brahe and others built many such devices without having any real idea of the laws of motion. The very shape of the Antikythera device strongly suggests that it was just another attempt to convert circular motion into the planetary motions. Such a device might well have been constructed by simple trial and error

Some of the 1st computers were for precisely this reason, ie tracing planetary & even Earth orbits.

As far as not knowing laws of motion, you do realise that Newton isn't the be all & end all of things? That relativity turns out to only be accurate if you ignore the fact that Michelson-Morley experimentation was falsely reported? That Columbus was most certainly not out to prove the world was round because that has been known for thousands of years? That only Europeans were silly enough to think the Earth was the centre of the universe? (Sumerians, Egyptians, cultures in India, China & Japan ALL knew the Earth travelled around the sun)

Just saying that only in the extremely limited field of knowledge allowed by the church in Europe & Eastern Europe can the Antikythera device be considered as something out of the blue.

Speak to almost any engineer & get them to have a look at what is now known of the device & you will find they have a list longer than your arm of fields of knowledge that had to come before the device could be made, let alone conceived. It most certainly is not something cobbled together in a backyard shed by trial & error.

And I am unsure what you mean by the shape of it - best guess seems to be it was housed in a rectangular box - the shape of the cogs tells us nothing about what it was used for. Engineering isn't my strong suit but even I know that. - cogs are cogs - there aren't a lot of ways to make them & have them work.

The first decent computer was a design by Charles Babbage, called the difference engine - recently built from the plans, it works! Lots of cogs & gears in it too. If that was a computer (& the computer world thinks it was) then so is the Antikythera device - & somebody actually built[ the Antikythera device! The Babbage engine remained unbuilt for more than 100 years before Tech Institute students built it as a project.

Some of the 1st computers were for precisely this reason, ie tracing planetary & even Earth orbits.

As far as not knowing laws of motion, you do realise that Newton isn't the be all & end all of things? That relativity turns out to only be accurate if you ignore the fact that Michelson-Morley experimentation was falsely reported? That Columbus was most certainly not out to prove the world was round because that has been known for thousands of years? That only Europeans were silly enough to think the Earth was the centre of the universe? (Sumerians, Egyptians, cultures in India, China & Japan ALL knew the Earth travelled around the sun)

Just saying that only in the extremely limited field of knowledge allowed by the church in Europe & Eastern Europe can the Antikythera device be considered as something out of the blue.

Speak to almost any engineer & get them to have a look at what is now known of the device & you will find they have a list longer than your arm of fields of knowledge that had to come before the device could be made, let alone conceived. It most certainly is not something cobbled together in a backyard shed by trial & error.

And I am unsure what you mean by the shape of it - best guess seems to be it was housed in a rectangular box - the shape of the cogs tells us nothing about what it was used for. Engineering isn't my strong suit but even I know that. - cogs are cogs - there aren't a lot of ways to make them & have them work.

The first decent computer was a design by Charles Babbage, called the difference engine - recently built from the plans, it works! Lots of cogs & gears in it too. If that was a computer (& the computer world thinks it was) then so is the Antikythera device - & somebody actually built[ the Antikythera device! The Babbage engine remained unbuilt for more than 100 years before Tech Institute students built it as a project.

I am well aware of Charles Babbage, Lady Lovelace, etc. having taught computer science long ago for EKU...

http://www.eku.edu/

There is a clear historical record of them. As to the Antikythera device there is much speculation. But speculation is not the same as history.

As to the Church, I would simply note that the Church in its schools, monasteries, etc. did its best to preserve what knowledge of the classical ages could be salvaged. But I would not expect you to understand that.

According to Lakoff we must leave behind a number of familiar ideas...

• Meaning is based on truth and reference; it concerns the relationship between symbols and things in the world.[/*:m:1gloo55u]
• Biological species are natural kinds, defined by common essential properties.[/*:m:1gloo55u]
• The mind is separate from, and independent of, the body.[/*:m:1gloo55u]
• Emotion has no conceptual content.[/*:m:1gloo55u]
• Grammar is a matter of pure form.[/*:m:1gloo55u]
• Reason is transcendental, in that it transcends--goes beyond--the way human beings, or any other kinds of beings, happen to think. It concerns the inferential relationships among all possible concepts in this universe or any other. Mathematics is a form of transcendental reason.[/*:m:1gloo55u]
• There is a correct, God's eye view of the world--a single correct way of understanding what is and is not true.[/*:m:1gloo55u]
• All people think using the same conceptual system.[/*:m:1gloo55u]

~ page 9.

Perhaps some of these ideas must be abandoned. Perhaps some should be held. It is not my intent to argue the point at this time. My intent is to focus on these ideas in my attempt to determine a prototype for Lakoff's Classical Theory. For some of the thinkers "from the time of Aristotle to the later work of Wittgenstein" held these ideas, some did not.

At this point I would also note that the above statements go far beyond the categories, themselves, and refer to reality beyond mere categorization and language. Whether it is possible to draw such a conclusion from the evidence provided by linguistics is far from clear.

The first belief that Lakoff would have one abandon is "Meaning is based on truth and reference; it concerns the relationship between symbols and things in the world."

The statement seems to be poorly worded. One must suppose that Lakoff really meant to say that truth is based on meaning and reference. He seems to have reversed the connection between truth and meaning. It is a minor reversal, but worth noting.

But, let us go back to what we have seen Lakoff supposing earlier to be properties of classical thought...

Thought is the mechanical manipulation of abstract symbols.
The mind is an abstract machine, manipulating symbols essentially in the way a computer does, that is, by algorithmic computation.
Symbols (e.g., words and mental representations) get their meaning via correspondences to things in the external world. All meaning is of this character.

Machines that do no more than mechanically manipulate symbols that correspond to things in the world are capable of meaningful thought and reason.

Lakoff is, in fact, ascribing contradictory properties to classical thought. On the one hand it sees reason to be the mechanical manipulation of abstract thought. On the other hand, meaning is somehow related to truth and reference and so is not abstract, after all.

The first belief that Lakoff would have one abandon is "Meaning is based on truth and reference; it concerns the relationship between symbols and things in the world."

The statement seems to be poorly worded. One must suppose that Lakoff really meant to say that truth is based on meaning and reference. He seems to have reversed the connection between truth and meaning. It is a minor reversal, but worth noting.

But, let us go back to what we have seen Lakoff supposing earlier to be properties of classical thought...

Thought is the mechanical manipulation of abstract symbols.
The mind is an abstract machine, manipulating symbols essentially in the way a computer does, that is, by algorithmic computation.
Symbols (e.g., words and mental representations) get their meaning via correspondences to things in the external world. All meaning is of this character.

[quote:1yv0h075]Machines that do no more than mechanically manipulate symbols that correspond to things in the world are capable of meaningful thought and reason.

Lakoff is, in fact, ascribing contradictory properties to classical thought. On the one hand it sees reason to be the mechanical manipulation of abstract thought. On the other hand, meaning is somehow related to truth and reference and so is not abstract, after all.[/quote:1yv0h075]
How did thinkers "from the time of Aristotle to the later work of Wittgenstein" think of the relations between symbols and things in the world?

Well, they held a variety of opinions. Many were Realists, as Lakoff suggests. Some were Nominalists, like William of Ockham...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Ockham
Some were Solipsists, such as George Berkeley...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley
Some were Dualists, such as René Descartes...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes
Some were Idealists, such as Immanuel Kant...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant

It is clear, therefore, that Realism does not characterize classical thought.

How did thinkers "from the time of Aristotle to the later work of Wittgenstein" think of the relations between symbols and things in the world?

Well, they held a variety of opinions. Many were Realists, as Lakoff suggests. Some were Nominalists, like William of Ockham...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Ockham
Some were Solipsists, such as George Berkeley...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley
Some were Dualists, such as René Descartes...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes
Some were Idealists, such as Immanuel Kant...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant

It is clear, therefore, that Realism does not characterize classical thought.

Another belief that Lakoff would have one abandon is that "Biological species are natural kinds, defined by common essential properties."

Here Lakoff has taken a sharp turn from metaphysics to biology. What is the connection between the two?

Aristotle is the connection. Contrary to popular belief, he was a scientist -- the greatest scientist of the ancient world. Arguably he was the greatest scientist until Galileo Galilei, indeed, perhaps the greatest scientist before Isaac Newton.

He was a biologist who dabbled in a variety of other subjects, such as physics, metaphysics, psychology and logic. He was an astute observer of the world about him. Wherever his student, Alexander went he collected samples of curiosities to send back to his teacher. One can imagine him at his examining table pondering some plant or animal that Alexander had sent back. Like Carolus Linnaeus, he knew that he needed to fit into his catalog of species.

Unlike Linnaeus, he was a philosopher as well as a scientist. His catalog included everything in the natural world about him, from stars above his head to the dirt below his feet. And so it was that he built his theory of the categories, the subject of the book we are considering.

Another belief that Lakoff would have one abandon is that "Biological species are natural kinds, defined by common essential properties."

Here Lakoff has taken a sharp turn from metaphysics to biology. What is the connection between the two?

Aristotle is the connection. Contrary to popular belief, he was a scientist -- the greatest scientist of the ancient world. Arguably he was the greatest scientist until Galileo Galilei, indeed, perhaps the greatest scientist before Isaac Newton.

He was a biologist who dabbled in a variety of other subjects, such as physics, metaphysics, psychology and logic. He was an astute observer of the world about him. Wherever his student, Alexander went he collected samples of curiosities to send back to his teacher. One can imagine him at his examining table pondering some plant or animal that Alexander had sent back. Like Carolus Linnaeus, he knew that he needed to fit into his catalog of species.

Unlike Linnaeus, he was a philosopher as well as a scientist. His catalog included everything in the natural world about him, from stars above his head to the dirt below his feet. And so it was that he built his theory of the categories, the subject of the book we are considering.

How, then did thinkers "from the time of Aristotle to the later work of Wittgenstein" view biological species?

Aristotle, himself, considered the evolution of species, quoting Empedocles...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empedocles

Aristotle rejected the idea, saying...

For teeth and all other natural things either invariably or normally come about in a given way; but of not one of the results of chance or spontaneity is this true.

~ Physics

His rejection of evolution, however, was complicated by his acceptance of the idea that animals can develop spontaneously due to chance events.

The next major thinker on the subject was Lucretius...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucretius

who proposed a detailed theory in favor of evolution...

The earth and sun formed from swirls of dust congregated from atoms colliding and vibrating in the void; early plants and animals sprang from the early earth's own substance because of the insistence of the atoms that formed the earth; the aging earth gave birth to a succession of animals including a series of progressively less brutish humans that made a succession of improved tools, laws, and civilizations with increasing complexity finally arriving at the current earth and lifeforms as they are.

~ On the Nature of Things

Unfortunately the methods of science available at the time precluded general acceptance of his theory. It was not until Charles Darwin's book, The Origin of Species that the idea seriously came to be considered by scientists.

There are, however, strong arguments against the theory outlined by Darwin. Thus, although the general structure of evolution has generally been accepted by biologists, there is no similar agreement on its mechanisms.

[CFTraveler]

There are, however, strong arguments against the theory outlined by Darwin. Thus, although the general structure of evolution has generally been accepted by biologists, there is no similar agreement on its mechanisms.

I agree. Having studied Anthropology in my original 4 years of college , what was considered evolutionary theory was quite more diverse than what is considered the same nowadays. The science of the 80's was not so married to Darwinism in a strict sense. Then came the politicizing of the theory, which IMO made it take a step backwards. But then it's just my perception.