The nonsense of antropomorphism

[Hrvoje1]

13 minutes ago, Strange said:

Really? So if I say that humans have legs, that means that norther animals have legs?

I think you need to study logic.

There is nothing wrong with my logic, just don't get too distressed. You are not saying that humans have legs, you are labeling someone's claim anthropomorphic, who says about something that is not so obvious that it might have legs, that it have legs. It's not the same thing. If you can compare it with any other animal with legs, why saying it is anthropomorphic?

26 minutes ago, Strange said:

The use of "memory" in that context is itself an anthropomorphic metaphor.

It is not. It is a well established terminology in that domain, that has nothing to do with fables.

Edited March 3, 2019 by Hrvoje1

[Strange]

20 minutes ago, Hrvoje1 said:

If you can compare it with any other animal with legs, why saying it is anthropomorphic?

I knew it was another "people use words different to me and they must stop" thread. You will just have to get over the fact that not everyone is going to use words the same way you do.

21 minutes ago, Hrvoje1 said:

It is not. It is a well established terminology in that domain, that has nothing to do with fables.

Who said it is anything to do with fables? Memory is a human capability; by ascribing it to inanimate objects that is both a metaphor and anthropomorphic (even if other animals have memory).

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Hrvoje1 said:

I am not talking about fables here, Aesop, La Fontaine and similar authors, there is nothing silly about them, or anthropomorphism in that context. Saying however that molecules having memory or knowledge is anthropomorphic, is silly, and this myth should be debunked, because there is nothing anthropomorphic in that claim.

Nothing anthropomorphic? Humans do not have knowledge? 

Is the (rough) definition “something that humans do/having human characteristic” or “something that humans do exclusively/having an exclusive human characteristic”?

 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Which is exactly what I said.

Indeed so.

It was not clear who “responders” meant. Thanks for clarifying; I had made an incorrect inference.

[Hrvoje1]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

Humans do not have knowledge?

Who cares what humans have? Why do you have to compare everything with humans, if the same characteristic exists elsewhere? The arrogance is exactly in the fact that people don't recognize it elsewhere in nature, that is the problem.

Edited March 3, 2019 by Hrvoje1

[swansont]

47 minutes ago, Hrvoje1 said:

If you can compare it with any other animal with legs, why saying it is anthropomorphic?

I agree with Strange. You’re lashing out because people are not using the same twisted definition you are. Acknowledging that memory and knowledge are human attributes does not imply that only humans have these things.

3 minutes ago, Hrvoje1 said:

Who cares what humans have? Why do you have to compare everything with humans, if the same characteristic exists elsewhere? The arrogance lies exactly in the fact that people don't recognize it elsewhere in nature, that is the problem.

Because that’s the shortest path in a conversation. You are reading more into the use of the word than most people would find reasonable. You don’t actually know that people are being arrogant/ignorant.

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, Hrvoje1 said:

Who cares what humans have? Why do you have to compare everything with humans, if the same characteristic exists elsewhere? The arrogance is exactly in the fact that people don't recognize it elsewhere in nature, that is the problem.

Why is arrogant to base metaphors on human capabilities? We say that a camera can "see" a scene. We say that a computer has "memory". We say that music "talks" to us. We say that "water wants to find its own level".

Does this mean that we don't think other animals can see, remember, etc?

Maybe I should start a thread about people misusing the word "arrogance".

 

[Hrvoje1]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

You’re lashing out because people are not using the same twisted definition you are.

What twisted definition? Give me one example.

[swansont]

1 minute ago, Hrvoje1 said:

What twisted definition? Give me one example.

That a non-human having some attribute makes the use of “anthropomorphic” invalid. That just wrong. (The definition with “exclusively” that I previously gave.)

[Hrvoje1]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

That a non-human having some attribute makes the use of “anthropomorphic” invalid. That just wrong. (The definition with “exclusively” that I previously gave.)

I didn't say that the definition of "anthropomorphic" includes "exclusively". I just said that it is arrogant to use "anthropomorphic" for attributes that are not exclusively human. Because, if you told Descartes a few hundred years ago that animals can think, and that chimpanzee is superior to human in short term memory, he would have thought that you are crazy. Because, he knew nothing better, although he was a genius. And traces of such a mindset are present to these days, in this thread particularly.

[taeto]

2 hours ago, Hrvoje1 said:

Anything capable of learning, should be capable of knowing, because knowing is a result of learning. OK? There is nothing specifically technical about it. Bad logic of yours.

You say there is nothing technical about the concept of "machine learning"? How much do you actually know about this scientific topic? And why do you think that it is not a technical discipline?

You are clearly using "knowing" and "learning" to have other meanings than usual. All the insults against those who do not immediately agree with you do not help either. Explanations would be better. 

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, Hrvoje1 said:

I just said that it is arrogant to use "anthropomorphic" for attributes that are not exclusively human.

And you are obviously wrong.

11 minutes ago, Hrvoje1 said:

I didn't say that the definition of "anthropomorphic" includes "exclusively". I just said that it is arrogant to use "anthropomorphic" for attributes that are not exclusively human. Because, if you told Descartes a few hundred years ago that animals can think, and that chimpanzee is superior to human in short term memory, he would have thought that you are crazy. Because, he knew nothing better, although he was a genius. And traces of such a mindset are present to these days, in this thread particularly.

So your justification for it being arrogant is that other animals may be able to do the same thing. In other words, you think people are using "anthropomorphic" to mean something that only humans can do. 

You are very confused.

[Hrvoje1]

3 minutes ago, taeto said:

You say there is nothing technical about the concept of "machine learning"?

In that quote there is no mentioning of "machine learning". It says that anything capable of learning, should be capable of knowing, because knowing is a result of learning. It is a pure logic. I'm sorry if that insults you.

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, Hrvoje1 said:

It says that anything capable of learning, should be capable of knowing, because knowing is a result of learning. It is a pure logic.

You really do need to get a handle on logic. This is another fallacy.

Your argument is equivalent to: Anything with legs should be able to walk, because walking is a result of having legs. 

But tables cannot walk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

[taeto]

11 minutes ago, Hrvoje1 said:

In that quote there is no mentioning of "machine learning". It says that anything capable of learning, should be capable of knowing, because knowing is a result of learning. It is a pure logic. I'm sorry if that insults you.

You were answering to "The notion of "machine learning" has a specific technical meaning. It clearly has nothing to do with what it is that you would say it has. Bad choice of example."

And despite your attempt at trying to ridicule this fact, it is very obvious to those who know what "learn" means in this context, that even a very simple calculator is able to "learn", in the sense the verb is used technically. Now if the calculator also "knows" what is 2+2, does it not mean that it would not have to calculate the result again from scratch? Isn't that how you usually think of "knowing" something? 

[Hrvoje1]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Your argument is equivalent to: Anything with legs should be able to walk, because walking is a result of having legs.

This is a fallacy of (intentional) wrong analogy. Because my argument is not equivalent to that, in fact there is no resemblance at all. I would ask you to name something that can learn and cannot know, if I didn't know that you are just continuing, for the sake of arguing.
 

[Strange]

55 minutes ago, Hrvoje1 said:

I would ask you to name something that can learn and cannot know

A machine learning system.

But you carry on redefining words to suit you, and complaining about other people's use of words. I'm sure you will get along fine. It won't irritate anyone at all.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Hrvoje1 said:

I didn't say that the definition of "anthropomorphic" includes "exclusively".

Your responses are not consistent with this claim. 

1 hour ago, Hrvoje1 said:

I just said that it is arrogant to use "anthropomorphic" for attributes that are not exclusively human.

Such as this. Why is it arrogant to use the word as it is defined?

 

[studiot]

2 hours ago, Hrvoje1 said:

I just said that it is arrogant to use "anthropomorphic" for attributes that are not exclusively human.

Do you really know what the English word arrogant means?

 

In another thread I was asked a simple question and I have just said that  do not know the answer (and invited others with better knowledge to contribute).
To pretend I did know the answer and spout some bullshit would be arrogant of me.

Arrogance implies (top me) a measure of falsely claiming or believing an attribute I don't have or don't have to the extent claimed.

Edited March 3, 2019 by studiot

[Hrvoje1]

23 hours ago, Strange said:

Who said it is anything to do with fables? Memory is a human capability; by ascribing it to inanimate objects that is both a metaphor and anthropomorphic (even if other animals have memory).

When I say that my PC has memory, I don't consider that neither a metaphor, nor anthropomorphism. It merely means it can store information. It is not "ascribing a human capability to an inanimate object" that it actually doesn't have, it is describing its capability that is real and literal, and not metaphorical in any way. Pretty much every regular person that I know thinks that way.

Molecules have the same capability, they can store information, and that information can have causal power, such as in case of DNA.

There is no logic whatsoever that inanimate object can have such capability only if some lunatic attributes human property to it, it can only be the other way around. Living beings can have such capabilities exactly because they are implementable into inanimate objects too. Negating that, is vitalism. If that irritates you, it is your problem, and there is no redefining of words here.

21 hours ago, Strange said:

A machine learning system.

I don't know why machine learning system cannot know things it learned. Is it because it forgets too easily? I bet you didn't forget that you admitted how nonsensical that sounds, when you said: "Granted."