Natural Kind Concepts

January 1, 2024 Cognitive Insights, Unfinished No Comments

“To say that a kind is natural is to say that it corresponds to a grouping that reflects the structure of the natural world rather than the interests and actions of human beings.” (*) ‘Rather than’ already denotes the relative nature that pervades the whole domain.

Please read The meaning of a word.

This is the flip side of the same coin as social/general constructionism.

Natural kind concepts supposedly belong to the fundamental reality beneath the human constructs. Yet they are all relative — so, is there a fundamental reality in an ultimate sense?

We don’t know.

Natural versus unnatural kind

We can shove characteristics together and posit the result as a concept. Then, we can say that these characteristics intentionally define this concept. That doesn’t mean the concept exists outside of our shoving together. In that case, it’s clearly not a natural kind concept.

If we find a set of items that clearly belong together on the basis of a strong set of characteristics, then we can more readily talk of a natural kind concept.

The difference is made by the arbitrariness of the characteristics.

In an attempt to avoid arbitrariness, science is seen as unveiling natural kinds.

Even more, it’s about finding the most basic ones, thereby reducing unnecessary complexity in a quest for truth even while ‘final truths’ may not be reachable.

For instance, the search for a genuine unification theory of the universe — the one thing or force that everything is made of.

(Organic) nature’s ‘good enough’ is good for natural things.

Good enough to live and thrive — and procreate. Organic nature – of which we are a part – is into the concrete, not the abstract.

Yet, as far as we can see, universal nature is not necessarily devoid of the abstract.

Concepts are abstract.

A concept can be defined in two ways:

  • Intentional: by enumerating the characteristics that belong to this concept.
  • Extensional: by enumerating the set of items that belong to this concept.

Note that the concept doesn’t have these characteristics, nor is it the set itself.

Being abstract, concepts don’t exist in the spatiotemporal world.

Therefore, natural kind concepts also do not exist. They are irrevocably mental constructs. There is no chance they are ‘real.’ Whether they are ‘realistic,’ we cannot know. In view of our finding out ever more about the complexity of the universe, they probably don’t. Their existence would be close to magical.

This is especially important in super-A.I.

Such as for the Lisa project.

Ideally, there should be one clear and distinct ontology (set of concepts and relationships) to be used unequivocally in reasoning and communication.

The human mental world is far from that, which is one reason why we live in many silos and, within each silo, in a far semblance of understanding each other.

(*) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ― Natural Kinds; https://plato.stanford.edu/ENTRIES/natural-kinds/

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

The Power of Embedding

This is the power of complexity in humans and in present-day Large Language Models (the most visible form of A.I. nowadays). ‘Embedding’ is the transformation of information/knowledge into a format of many subconceptual elements interacting in multifaceted systems that makes this information prone to emerge in novel ways. A multitude of relatively simple (smaller than Read the full article…

Spirituality ― Key to Super-A.I.?

Spirituality is often seen as soft, emotional, even vague. Yet what people experience as spirituality may turn out to be a key to something far beyond that: intelligence which transcends logic, enhances coherence, and invites a depth that super-A.I. may come to rely on ― not as decoration but as power. This blog explores why Read the full article…

Wanted: Humility in an Age of Super-A.I.

Super-A.I. is coming, whether we are ready or not. Many believe our greatest challenge is to keep it under control, to ensure it serves us rather than the other way around. But this way of thinking is already a trap of mere-ego — the illusion that we can dominate something that will outthink us at Read the full article…

Translate »