Similarity and Natural Kinds

Preface:  I’ve been reading “Naturalizing Epistemology” by Hilary Kornblith, Ed., which reprints a couple of papers by W.V.O. Quine, “Epistemology Naturalized” and “Natural Kinds”, along with papers by others that relate to questions raised by Quine in those essays, or raised by others in response to those essays.  The present post was inspired by ideas in the first few essays in that book.

“Similarity”, I think, arises from replaceability.  Two objects are similar to the degree to which you could replace one with the other without salient change in the state-of-affairs under analysis.  Obviously “salient” and even “change” are terms in need of further analysis.

Perceptually, we have “hardwired” (innate) and “softwired” (learned) structures in our brains (primarily – with some functionality distributed elsewhere in our somas) to identify different kinds of similarity.  Hardwired structures include things like edge detectors and angle detectors.  Softwired structures are built up from such.  Questions that can be asked include:  How would such features have come to evolve?  Why are they so apparently efficacious?  Just how reliably efficacious are they?

The nature of organisms suggests categorization of environmental factors on the basis of their effects on the organism.  Some factors encourage growth or reproduction.  Some limit these or produce death or extinction.  With complex organisms, some factors have these effects on a part of the organism, only, and may have very different effects (or little effect, at all) on other parts – stimulating production of this hormone, while retarding production of that, for example.  Replaceability of these factors with respect to their organic effects is the basis of categorization, and the source of similarity.  The salience of change can be suitably quantified in each case (e.g., rate of cell reproduction or hormone production).

Since they derive from our interactions with the world, our categories and sense of similarity relate closely to the world.  But there is still an element of subjectivity.  All categories are relative to an analysis.  Some categories may be relatively stable across all conceivable analyses we may do.  These we tend to characterize as “natural kinds”.  But even natural kinds such as species can have fuzzy edges for certain analyses.  (Exactly where, on the evolutionary tree, does a particular species begin?)  An intelligence arising from a very different history (a silicon-based life form, say, or a spontaneously evolving “artificial” intelligence) might cleave the world very differently than we do.  But in some categories (mineralogy, biological lineages) if it made an analysis at all, there would probably be considerable correspondence with our own.  Natural kinds are not meaningless, nor arbitrary, but neither are they perfectly precise.

Random firings

March has been a very busy month. I’ve been doing a lot, reading a lot, thinking a lot, but haven’t had time to sit down and write a coherent blog post. So I’m going to try cobbling one together out of some of my shorter journal entries for the month. I’ve been rereading Dewey’s Experience and Nature (among other things), and much in the following musings is influenced by that. The last, however, was influenced in part by discussions at a recent DSA meeting on Monte Pearson’s Perils of Empire, and by an article by Arthur MacEwan.


3/5/10

Rules of arithmetic have their properties only in virtue of the abstractness of numbers. For instance, consider X&Y chromosomes. Normal human females have two X chromosomes, normal males have one X and one Y. Thus,

F: 2 ea x 1 type = 2 chromosomes
M: 1 ea x 2 types = 2 chromosomes

Abstracted to the level of chromosomes, this gives:

2 x 1 = 1 x 2 = 2

which is valid, but the practical significance of the information lost to abstraction is far from trivial.

In general, classes of things are classes only if the difference between members is unimportant, which is a function of the analysis to be performed, and the level of abstraction appropriate to that analysis.


3/12/10

Reality is always there, it is just-as-it-is. But knowing always involves an abstraction. There is no way to know something just-as-it-is. The notion of doing so is vacuous: there is no meaningful way to understand it. The just-as-it-is cannot be inside your head. What is in your head is a pattern of neurological activity, chemicals, electricity... This neural pattern is associated with the just-as-it-is. They are linked in experience. This linkage is knowing. It involves a process of abstraction (choice from among the full range of experience presented) and analysis (ordering and associations upon the objects of choice).


3/17/10

Confusion around the concept of causation may result from applying (as a metaphor) concepts pertaining to the goal-directed action of sentient things to non-sentient nature. For us, the results of our actions come at the end of a causal chain (or intermediate results come as intermediate points on the chain). We look for the same effect in nature.


3/20/10

When we divide the world into objects, we do so along natural lines of cleavage, but these are not the only lines of cleavage, nor do we always cleave the same reality in the same way. We parse the world into objects pragmatically, in the ways that make sense to ourselves as a species, and also relative to our objectives at a given time. Some other species, or ourselves in different exigencies, would parse it differently.


3/27/10

The logic of capitalist accumulation is much like the logic of empire. If you have a (political) empire (e.g., Rome), even if you don’t consciously wish to expand, there is always trouble somewhere on the border, which entails the risk of losing some part of your existing empire. Losing part of your empire is bad, so the wise course seems to be to “pacify” the unruly neighbor, which as a practical matter means extending the empire.

In an uncertain world, maintaining your existing power is a delicate balancing act – too delicate for anyone to be confident of his ability to do it precisely. The real alternatives will always seem to be either increase your power, or tacitly allow it to recede. Since the second is unacceptable, the first course is followed by default.

In capitalism, power derives mainly from the effective control over property. (Note that this may, or may not be, coincident with formal “ownership”.) The logic of power leads one to try to maximize the power under one’s control, thus corporate growth, thus capital accumulation.

Note 1: A corollary, of sorts, is that capitalists desire to increase the prerogatives of capital, e.g. vis. labor.

Note 2: This logic of capital is very different from the logic of labor. Individual laborers may wish to increase their small store of wealth (purchasing power), but this is not their primary source of economic power. An unorganized laborer’s primary power is in her skills, strength, ability to work. If she is more politically conscious, she realizes that her real power lies in her ability to organize, both into labor unions and politically. Labor unions may accumulate some significant store of funds, but their main source of power lies in the number of workers they have organized.

Note 3: I mean “power” very broadly as the ability to independently make, or at least strongly influence, decisions affecting your life and/or the lives of others.