Douglas Hofstadter: The Nature of Categories and Concepts

Stanford Symbolic Systems Distinguished Speaker Lecture
Thursday, March 6, 2013
Douglas Hofstadter, College of Arts and Sciences Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Comparative Literature. Indiana University
What is a quintessential category? Bird, perhaps? Or maybe chair? And what is a quintessential concept? Two? Number? Prime number?
I'm not trying to put words into your mouth -- I'm just trying to get you to ask yourself these questions. Also, I wonder if by any chance you thought that these are really exactly the same question, in which case you might have wondered why I asked you the same question twice.
Or did you perhaps think something along these lines: "A category is a set of objects
out there in the real world, whereas a concept is a mental entity that gets activated whenever one sees a member of the corresponding category"? In that case, you would essentially be equating a category with the extension of a set, and a concept with the intension of a set. (Those are notions borrowed from mathematical logic and set theory.)
Actually, none of the notions above is at all close to the viewpoint that I wish to convey to you about concepts and categories. My viewpoint is, I think, quite unorthodox and quite radical, and it claims that concepts and categories include many extremely commonplace, dime-a-dozen notions that you might never have thought of as being categories or concepts. (Sorry -- I'm not going to list any of them here; you'll have to come to the talk to find out what I mean!) I will try to convince you that, despite any initial skepticism, these are primordial, quintessential cases, and I hope that this novel view will have a serious impact on what you think thinking is.

[@Achrononmaster]

DRH hardly ever gets onto KZbin. Even Feynman seems to have more lectures on KZbin. Could I make a general play for humanity to all of Hofstadter's students to damn well take a decent quality media recording whenever DRH lectures, please.

[@davegrundgeiger9063]

This this this.

[@heckler511]

ha so true!!

[@ecophile70]

How true it is! When I delved in Lucchino Visconti, I came to know that he directed several musical opera performaces starring Maria Callas. How beautiful it was. However, they can only be shown in fragments inserted in some documentary films about Visconti. I wish they should have recorded all the stage performances, all of which just disappeared.

[@utuonebrown2273]

6

[@buddhabillybob]

This man is a gift. I am in the Humanities, and I find his books to be downright bursting with insight.

[@UCFc1XDsWoHaZmXom2KVxvuA]

He might not have the Feynman-like charme as a scientist but i think that, if you listen closely to him, he says some of the truest things ever spoken

[@MACTRUQUE]

The fractal wonder of the abstract mind in full bloom!

[@mattrude103]

As a Minnesotan, "Born in Minneapolis but Grew up in St. Paul," is hilarious to me. To the locals this is ironically true. "You go to Minneapolis to sin and St. Paul to pray," as the old saying goes.

[@mattyjmar10]

Danny at the Grand Canyon. Dick, on the River Nile, at the Temple of Carnac. Douglas, his eyes opened!

[@tzirufim]

I just recently bought a book (Gödel Escher Bach) which was recommended to me. To my shame I haven't read it yet. So watching Hofstatders lectures makes me really want to dive in deeper into his mind, and I definetly will. I just thought that it might be nice to list the 2 movie titles the last student akss about. Because to me these are two of the best films in it's respective genre. Never thought one could bring them into this conversation. - Le fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain (2001) - The thin blue line (1988) If you are interested in documentaries in general you might want to give "The thin blue line" a try, because it is beeing said that it changed the genre. You will instantly know why while watching it ;) Sorry for the off topic guys but I saw people doing this on other videosSLASHlectures and I really find this helpful ;)

[@tbretten]

Phil Lawrence, I know it's three years ago but I don't think you have to be ashamed. In fact, this video motivated me to try (yet again) to understand the book. Did you manage in between?

[@MicahIsser]

Has anyone ever tried to apply this idea of categorization to Personality psychology - and in particular the work of Gordon Allport? The categorization of individuals, via a series of 'traits', is both a pragmatically useful tool (in that it gives a compressed analogy of predictive information) and possibly harmful (if it is a groundless mis-categorization, which Allport calls prejudice). Furthermore, the idea of categorization could be incredibly helpful to ethics - and Virtue ethics in particular. If qualities like 'courage,' 'kindness,' or even 'goodness' are understood as compressed analogies, they can serve as useful tools for making decisions and shaping identity, without falling into a trap of essentialist 'necessary & sufficient conditions', or psudo-Platonic forms. In general, Hofstadter's theories seem like a great development of Wittgenstein's language-based model of cognition. It paints a picture of thinking that doesn't a) reduce mental processes to neurology, b) suppose the existence of a transcendental 'consciousness' and c) doesn't put forth an unsubstantiated faculty-psychology.

[@markuslepisto7824]

George Kelly had some, in my opinion, extremely interesting insights about "categories". But I think it has more to do with the "subjective mental state" or "a belief".. thought..the "process" of it. Not so much about "evaluation of others.. quality", namely THEIR personality. Anyways in my opinion George Kelly and he's theories should have more attention amongst psychology students.

[@kishorekrishnadas5541]

If love this guy so much. A thinking American mind. Not quite unlike Warhol or Rawls. Thrilled to be here.

[@kishorekrishnadas5541]

If only we could get some of the fellas together for a Robotussin party. One can dream.

[@lukecresante]

Mixed reviews on the general value of this lecture (for earlier learners) without greater structure or a clear practical tie. - ## **Notes** - The categories in life are hard to pin down - We pick up words and phrases often without an understanding of why - **this is through analogy**. By hearing others, observing its use, and incorporating it into our own - Dictionaries, native speakers, courses, won't help us in certain cases. It's in practice, hearing the speech around you, that you pick it up through analogy - this natural feeling, it coming to your mind (sort of a sensational feeling, exciting moment) - Every word choice is a category and represents analogy making - "U.S. culture as a whole is excited by the creation of new categories (lives by the creation of new categories)" - Definition of intelligence - The ability to put one's finger on the essence of a situation rapidly. That means to categorize rapidly, to make analogies rapidly, to find strong and compelling analogies rapidly - ## **Note to Self** - **Look and think about the undertones/sub tones to more carefully consider deeper, possibly subconscious meanings and intentions.** - __"At the end of the day"__ - Probably acquired through analogy but given more frequent use this could be an example of something picked up through repeated exposure from a variety of circumstances. - It may lend a political tone __after all this X__ or __despite that (negative / nearing negative)__ this prevails. - It should be considered as such because it may highlight underlying intentions in its use (think conversationally)

[@schmetterling4477]

I don't even want to start counting just how many category errors you made in this post.

[@felicity9187]

this lecture is very darmok and jalad which is funny :) i think it’s really great and really apt that among internet users and star trek fans the phrase darmok and jalad has taken on a darmok and jalad meaning of its own

[@nelsonwhite1463]

Truthfully, I have tossed his book several times in favor of Joyce.

[@prithvichaitanya5224]

This truly is marvelous

[@timeven4769]

"And" and "but" are logically equivalent, but ... .

[@golddebra]

Uhhhhh, and uhhhh but uhhhh!

[@timeven4769]

Actually, zzzzzzzzzzzz!

[@ComputerweltPodcast]

Thank you very much for sharing this and the CCRMA concerts! All the best from Stockholm

[@eduardkoch5213]

drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1YP_-yqhS3_exi6Kfo8Gq82qIyMlJy6_V

[@IKnowNeonLights]

(Give them a minute or so.) That is the whole lecture, in a very short sentence. Alluding, that language is some type of measure. The lecture is alluding, not language, as it is not such, hence me picking up, a very short sentence, such as!!! (Give them a minute or so.) Used right at the end of the lecture, by the lecturer, (in relation to people leaving or wanting to leave) before taking questions in relation to it.

[@briancornish2076]

It's all in Roget's synopsis of categories (1852).

[@CarterColeisInfamous]

28:16 the reason he used but is because Texas is different from other states and wants to get TX cred for being raised there... it is as different from other states as growing up in Japan

[@bdbs5618]

Logic fully admits that "and" is not equivalent to "but" but for the sake of convenience, given the purpose of what they're trying to accomplish, namely to demarcate true statements from false ones, they explicitly assume the two words to be equivalent.

[@KrausHyperOpera]

True, but there are definitely some philosophers who view them as straight synonyms, with any differences between them attributable to implicatures or something else non-semantic. Certainly if you have the view that the truth-conditions for a sentence exhaustively characterize the meaning of a sentence they will seemingly have to be. I think it just comes down to what sort of equivalence you have in mind.

[@samLsmith-zw6jt]

Order in the court +Order in the court=But that's not all Folks.

[@guillaumecharrier7269]

"I have to go to school to pick up my backpack" kind of works because he has to go to THE school to get it, but since (we assume) it's a school day, if he steps into the school as is necessary, then he can't decently play truant in full view of everybody (the teachers, principal, what not) and walk out right after he's fetched the thing, so he is stuck and he has to go to school.

[@wafikiri_]

Conjunctions in Spanish are officially categorized. I learned their different categories when I was 9 years old: copulative, adversative, disjunctive, etc. I think this should be taught in English too. Then half this lecture would have not been necessary.

[@MrNewberryL]

Wafikiri His point isn't, I don't think, that conjunctives should be recognised as being divided into categories by grammarians and so on. Rather, that conjunctives like 'and', 'but', 'however', etc. are themselves categories in his sense (concepts), rather than merely mechanical bits of language for binding together the bits of language that possess meaning or content ('tree', 'horse', 'hosepipe', etc.). This, I took it, was part of his point about the legacy of mathematical logic, which encourages us to suppress conjunctives as mere logical operators as though natural language could be adequately modelled on the idealised language of predicate calculus. Tl;dr: his point is that our choice of conjunctive is not merely about 'flavour' or 'feel', it makes a genuine contribution to what we mean or to the thought we express.

[@SeiroosFardipour-sy3sh]

Take your loical tree and at each bifurcation point creates new bifurcations if the first were 0&1then next is 0101red horizontally Now rotate all tree fron starting point toward centre ,when rotated one becomes at same level of second the (0101) we will see that oprates like a logical doors having both doors potentially like 01or/and 01next ramification gives us 01,0,01 here the symbol of any sentence is related to other by the symbol ,0, therefore logical ports are by nature the symbols and inversely

[@borntobemild-]

Can someone try adding this to GPT-3?

[@wafikiri_]

After having watched this video's lecture, I feel disappointed, because the title is totally misleading. It should be called "The power of words in categorization and their cultural diversity" instead, or something like that. I was expecting a lecture on "the nature" of categories. And on that of concepts. I have a clear, neat, neurologically sound, and mathematically precise concept of categories and of concepts, and of how they are created, modified, recognized, and combined in the nervous system; therefore I do not need to be told. But I wanted to learn whether this clear, neat, neurologically sound, and mathematically precise concept diferred from Professor Hofstadter's. And I hoped for a Cognitive Science description on how concepts and categories are created, modified, recognized, and combined in the nervous system. To see if they match the way I see them. Oh, well. Maybe next time.

[@PicaMonedula]

you seem to have misunderstood - noone has a clear idea of the things you claim to have so it might be appropriate to be open to theories. Mabe try Gödel, escher, bach for deeper speculation. btw. his point is that there is no precise concept of anything, and because someone made up a way of categorizing something, doesn't mean that the categories are there, but that someone did what the brain does by putting stuff into boxes as a means of understanding and applying knowledge This guys theories are pretty coherent with and mabe even inspiration for modern attempts of mind simulation, AI so just mabe be a little humble in your approach, Hofstadter is a modern genius

[@wafikiri_]

Rasmus Daugaard Hansen I do not doubt this lecturer is a genius. But if his genius has not carried him to that clear and sound understanding of how concepts and categorization (and even how analogies) are made in the brain, he is one step behind me. Are YOU open to theories? For I can expose a falsifiable one on this matter in less than 100 lines. But then, if, as you say, nobody has a clear idea on that, I want the merit too. Would you recognize its merit if it is really sound?

[@PicaMonedula]

Wafikiri 100 lines?

[@wafikiri_]

Rasmus Daugaard Hansen Sorry. I meant lines of text but in fact a score of words would state the essence of my theory. The remainder I'd use to explain the why's and how's, show examples, elaborate on consequences.

[@PicaMonedula]

If the whole of you believed yourself what you are saying, then i think you would/should seek someone else's attention. If it floats i will be watching development on this topic anyway so don't bother about me. I don't feel any kind of intrigued by or have any trust or faith in anything you say so... Good luck with it

[@anthonymercuri8885]

25:17 Such a missed pun opportunity!! "At that point, but(t)s became extremely interesting to me". It was right there, Hofstadter! What are you *doing*, man?!

[@davegrundgeiger9063]

Danny at the Grand Canyon

[@luckyyuri]

does anybody know "danny at the grand canyon" falls into semantic memory or episodic memory. normally it would be a clear episodic memory but when you see something that triggers the retrieval of that old memory, it kinda seems to me that it serves as a semantic

[@matijabalic7960]

I think it is better represented (thought of) as working memory. This concept allows one to safely "ignore" the source of a memory. This way, whether the memory was triggered by something from your surroundings or form your inner turmoils, becomes an irrelevant question. As log as one is aware of the memory - that is, as along as one is perceiving it - and as long as one is working on/with it, one may conceptualize it as a segment of experience now present in working memory. Regardless of where it came from (what stimulated it).

[@executivedysfunction]

Proverbs are part of a typical mental status exam

[@digmerjustinianosantos7002]

Una conferencia muy importante.

[@eleonoraformatoneeszczepan8807]

7:58 min ... why forms, designed to make things easier, complicate things ...

[@luizhenriquemoraismazzucco4526]

hmmm ya

[@sanpo777]

The Singularity is Near, Douglas! (1:19:40) )

[@dutchbrannigan9739]

+sanpo777 Ah yes, the end of mankind...what wonderful news **sarcasm**

[@nelsonwhite1463]

Remember, we aren't out of the woods yet!

[@Vladimirwlr1234]

For someone who mentions Eleanor Rosch, his understanding of categorization seems to be very fuzzy and vague. I think he might have done what a lot of people have done and read Rosch up until the second stage of her theory, so he gets prototype effects, but not a whole lot of other things like radial categories or generators. Rosch didn't stop working in the 70's, there's new stuff to be read.

[@smackronme]

believed/fall for that..

[@ceticamente]

34:10 ➡️➡️apparently kid 💁

[@MendTheWorld]

He should perhaps write a book that provides a grand compilation of words together with other words belonging to the same category of meaning. He can call it, um,... er.... ooh, ooh.... I've GOT it: a "thesaurus". My favorite part is where he discovers the difference between a definite and indefinite article (or should that be THE definite and indefinite article, if you want to refer to articles in general).

[@yushpi]

Is this a sarcastic dismissal?

[@donsevers]

If he does more than give examples, I'll be gratified but surprised. I've never heard him say anything about the nature of categories or analogies in his books or lectures.

[@donsevers]

At about 1:22:00 an audience member asks about the relation between Platonic categories and Hofstadter's work. He repeats some examples. He's a philosopher if anyone is, but I haven't heard anything from him about the ontology of categories.

[@dirkblabla]

34:30 with regards to some English examples. This kid just learned the word "apparently" kzbin.info/www/bejne/qKuYhXqEbMqIma8

[@jorgelarangeira1502]

I think DH stumbled on the Wittgenstein's concept of “language games”

[@AG-yu6hi]

Chị hướng dẫn bài Hà Lan đi chị mây ❤️

[@sibam_debnath]

Professor look like andy worhol

[@VyvienneEaux]

Perhaps Danny was young enough to not be impressed by the Grand Canyon because it was just as novel as the ants.

[@jabrown]

douGlas hOfstaDter

[@luizhenriquemoraismazzucco4526]

interessant

[@ueeneri]

'Nevertheless', 'however', 'but' indicate that what is said or written next is a modifying thought ie modifies the initial statement by adding something unexpected or subtracting from the implications of the first statement. I am definitely missing something in all this stuff about categories. Seems to be complicating things unnecessarily. 'But' is an event in discourse space, he says. OK. I think this is a real mess of a lecture, it's all over the place. What's his point, what's his insight? Please, someone, enlighten me!

[@billearp245]

Just footprints in the sand.

[@igobivo]

tears in rain?

[@billearp245]

Drop in the bucket?

[@Enerdzizer]

pain in the ass?

[@samLsmith-zw6jt]

DNA test?

[@jameshalford1180]

yeah, no, it's an error

[@nelsonwhite1463]

Mr. Hofstadter is losing his hair. That's for sure. And that is no paradox! I think.

[@zissou6928]

nelson white so?

[@vinpalace6934]

You lost me.

[@TheWyrdSmythe]

[Fail] 0:35 minutes in and nothing interesting or even particularly on-topic has been said. It's been mostly a simplistic ramble about grammar and only revealed Hofstadter seems clueless about "and," "but" and "nonetheless." Not gonna bother to find out if it gets better further in.

[@Losloth]

It doesn't get better, but I can recommend his talk "analogy as the core of thinking" - which is more to the point, and actually gives you something more to think about. I can summarize that hour long talk in three sentences though: (1) Analogy drives categorisation. (2) Concepts and categories are the same. (3) Concepts relate to each other in two ways; as sort of members of the same family (this idea is from Wittgenstein), such that they share features but are not the same, OR they are sort of nesting within each other, so that some categories taken together make up the next one. This concept is called nesting.

[@TheWyrdSmythe]

Emil Danielsen Funny, I've got that one queued up. But you make it sound as self-evident as this one.

[@efegokmen]

I share the same point of view with you

[@ArtOfTheProblem]

@@Losloth nice summary. i'm working on a series on AI and digging around to understand all theories

[@MahmoudIsmail1988.]

Thank you, totally agree, I think it is merely a self-indulgent useless show off

[@4subvoid4]

Kind of boring.

[@guillaumecharrier7269]

"FRENCHLANGUAGEXXX, quoi." means that you have successfully expressed in a succinct, practical way a complex thought. You have successfully boiled it down to its conceptual essence and practical import. It's a little nod to yourself for having achieved that, and an invitation for your interlocutor to acknowledge as much - while also admitting that some less important, but nonetheless existent, elements of the original thought have been lost through the boiling down process.