Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hylomorphism

1000wordphilosophy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 56 posts

Re: Hylomorphism

#11

Post by jiggawatts »

The issue I've always had with this kind of reductionist philosophy is that there is a very clear and obvious continuum between "table" and "not table". At no point can everyone clearly agree what is and isn't a table.

Sure, most people would agree that an assembled IKEA "LISABO" table is a table.

Okay.. what if one of the legs is removed and it is sideways? What if one leg is removed but it is propped up with a pile of boxes?

What if it's intact as designed, but slightly scuffed? Deeply gouged? Horribly worn to the point of having holes through the top but still able to support plates and cutlery? What if all four legs are also broken, but it's still serviceable as a Japanese-style low table? What if atom-by-atom, we erode its form until nobody alive agrees that it is a table? What if someone then changes their mind?

This is the problem: all forms of matter, unless specified down to individual atoms, are just social conventions -- inconsistent ones at that!

Re: Hylomorphism

#12

Post by Vektorceraptor »

CodeGroyper wrote: post #9

It works well for computer science as well. Values have types (forms) and bytes (matter). One type can be instantiated in multiple ways, for example you can have multiple integers, like 1,2,3,4 or the bytes 01000001 can represent different information, like 65 or 'A'. The interesting thing is null, because here the distinction sort of breaks down.

But that's not entirely true, because the mapping alone doesn't give you any ordering relation or comparison options. Translating the natural numbers into bytes doesn't tell you how they should be ordered. We determine the 'form' of the order with our minds.

Re: Hylomorphism

#13

Post by JackFr »

Vektorceraptor wrote: post #10

"4. Conclusion If I do produce something new when I assemble the contents of the box, then the table is something more than just those contents. The table is not only its material parts, but also the formal organization of those parts. And that is the fundamental claim of hylomorphism: that there is some kind of formal part, component, or aspect to any table, chair, rock, tree, rabbit, planet, or human being, somethi…

> The form exists neither on the object nor in a Platonic heaven, but only in our minds because it is 'imposed' on the table by our reason and intellectual categories.

This. I was looking for this in the original article. Thanks for following up.

I really prefer learning these aspects of philosophy rather than more ethics oriented topics but it’s really such a rich subject.

Re: Hylomorphism

#14

Post by sshine »

vnorilo wrote: post #3

TFA is about philosophy, but the computer science concept is also interesting - composition of recursive functions. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylomorphism_(computer_scien...

The article that explores these recursion schemes is: Functional Programming with Bananas, Lenses, Envelopes and Barbed Wire

https://maartenfokkinga.github.io/utwente/mmf91m.pdf

There is a review of this article, although it is quite readable in and of itself:

https://reasonablypolymorphic.com/blog/recursion-schemes/ind...

Re: Hylomorphism

#15

Post by earthboundkid »

hmm37 wrote: post #7

It's pretty similar to Chinese Neo-Confucian concepts of 理 (li) and 气 (qi). Qi being matter-energy. Li - being structure or form or pattern. Although to be human in Chinese concepts, required more than just having the form of a human, and e.g. looking human, but also the ability to act like a human with concepts of e.g. 仁 (ren).

I love Xunzi’s definition of human and wish it were more widely discussed in the West:

水火有氣而無生，草木有生而無知，禽獸有知而無義，人有氣、有生、有知，亦且有義，故最為天下貴也。力不若牛，走不若馬，而牛馬為用，何也？曰：人能群，彼不能群也。人何以能群？曰：分。分何以能行？曰：義。故義以分則和，和則一，一則多力，多力則彊，彊則勝物；故宮室可得而居也

Water and fire have qi but lack life. Trees and shrubs have life but lack intelligence. Birds and beasts have intelligence but lack morality. Humans have qi, life, intelligence, and moreover morality, hence are most honored under heaven. Our strength is not like the ox, nor our speed that of the horse, yet we employ them. How is it so? I say, humans work together and they do not. How do we work together? Through social roles. Where do social roles come from? Morality. Thus morality creates social roles, and from social roles comes harmony, from harmony comes unity, from unity comes strength. Strength overcomes obstacles and conquers nature. Thus we have mansions and palaces to reside in.

It’s a very clear distillation of Chinese thought, but no one ever talks about it.

Re: Hylomorphism

#16

Post by earthboundkid »

jiggawatts wrote: post #11

The issue I've always had with this kind of reductionist philosophy is that there is a very clear and obvious continuum between "table" and "not table". At no point can everyone clearly agree what is and isn't a table. Sure, most people would agree that an assembled IKEA "LISABO" table is a table. Okay.. what if one of the legs is removed and it is sideways? What if one leg is removed but it is propped up with a pile…

A table is an artificial object. If I’m trying to build a table and a leg breaks, I will replace the broken leg. A natural object like the Old Man of the Mountain isn’t like that. When it broke, nature didn’t care and didn’t “fix” it. Biological organisms are weird because they are in between. Your heart pumps your blood, and if it’s not working, your body tries its best to fix it. It has a function like an artificial object, but it has no designer or mental intention behind it. Then what about the mind itself? The brain is an undesigned organ. How can it represent the world?

Re: Hylomorphism

#17

Post by xoac »

hackandthink wrote: post #6
DiscourseFan wrote: post #4

If only hylo-morphism was so simple...I just spent a few months studying the concept, and let me tell you, Aristotle's form/matter distinction is so strange and complex and difficult to "boil down." Really, it takes a close, and very slow reading of the Physics (as well as other Aristotle texts), and a lot of reference to secondary sources, to get a handle on those difficulties. I'm not sure if this is an apt introdu…

I have not read much Aristotle, but I can empathize. He tried to get to the bottom of things and pursued various paths. I think his mainstream metaphysics (Genus, Species, Difference, ...) is somewhat different from his Hylemorphism and was more successful. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/index.htm...

“mainstream metaphysics” what??

Re: Hylomorphism

#18

Post by tempodox »

Before this I only knew hylomorphism as an abstract algorithm (that can, among others, implement the factorial function). I had no idea it has such an esoteric side.

Re: Hylomorphism

#19

Post by MontagFTB »

CodeGroyper wrote: post #9

It works well for computer science as well. Values have types (forms) and bytes (matter). One type can be instantiated in multiple ways, for example you can have multiple integers, like 1,2,3,4 or the bytes 01000001 can represent different information, like 65 or 'A'. The interesting thing is null, because here the distinction sort of breaks down.

I wonder if this is the reason Hylo was given its name: https://www.hylo-lang.org/
Post reply on HN