Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!mcvax!botter!hansw From: hansw@cs.vu.nl (Hans Weigand) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: natural kinds Message-ID: <1526@botter.cs.vu.nl> Date: Fri, 17-Jul-87 09:33:46 EDT Article-I.D.: botter.1526 Posted: Fri Jul 17 09:33:46 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 18-Jul-87 13:40:33 EDT Reply-To: hansw@cs.vu.nl (Hans Weigand) Distribution: world Organization: VU Informatica, Amsterdam Lines: 42 It seems to me that _at least_ three kinds of "natural kinds" should be distinguished: (1) genetic kinds, existing by virtue of reproduction ("a horse is a horse because it is born from a horse") Examples: animal and vegetable species (2) mimetic kinds, existing by virtue of imitation, to be subdivided in (a) iconic kinds (by causally determined representation) (the "Xerox-principle" of Dretske: an image of an image of x is again an image of x) Examples: all linguistic symbols (graphic or phonemic) (b) artificial kinds (by imitation on purpose), existing by virtue of preconceived design followed by numerous production (the "Ford-principle" |-) ) Examples: car models, coins (c) fashion kinds (by copying behavior, largely uncontrolled) Examples: social groups (punks, yuppies, ..), styles of art, etc. (3) anthropic/functional kinds, existing by virtue of readiness_to_hand Examples: chair, cup, house, knife, game The last one needs some comments. Each human being needs certain things in order to survive and live in a satisfactory way. These things are mainly determined by the functioning of the human body and community, although there are also environmental and historical-cultural influences. Thus we may recognize an Eskimo iglo, and an African pile-dwelling both as "houses". I think it is not so much the form (iconicity) that matters, but rather that we feel that, when we would live in Greenland (resp. the jungle), we would naturally appreciate or use these things as houses too (to protect us against cold, dangers). Similar arguments can be made for chair etc.. Moreover, (3) combines with (2). We are born into a human society. Our parents had the same needs as we have, so each generation copies these "anthropic kinds" and transfers them to a next generation. This makes it the more easy to recognize a (say Western) house. [In most discussions on "family kinds" and so on, (2) and (3) are not properly distinguished]. "Don't ask what a kind _is_, but rather how it _persists_" Hans Weigand (hansw@cs.vu.nl)