[geye1234]

> If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, is it a duck?

ISTM that the answer is "in a way yes, in a way no".

Yes, in that we reasonably conclude something is a duck if it seems like a duck.

No, in that seeming like a duck is not a cause of its being a duck (rather, it's the other way round).

When we want to figure out what something is, we reason from effect to cause. We know this thing is a duck because it waddles, quacks, lays eggs, etc etc. We figure out everything in reality this way. We know what a thing is by means of its behavior.

But ontologically -- ie outside our minds -- the opposite is happening from how we reason. Something waddles, quacks & lays eggs because it is a duck. Our reason goes from effect (the duck's behavior) to cause (the duck), but reality goes in the other direction.

Our reasoning (unlike reality) can be mistaken. We might be mistaking the model of a duck or a robot-duck for a real duck. But it doesn't follow from this that a model duck or a robot-duck is a duck. It just means a different cause is producing [some of] the same effects. This is true no matter how realistic the robot-duck is.

So we may (may!) be able to theoretically simulate a nematode, though the difficulty level must be astronomical, but that doesn't mean we've thereby created a nematode. This seems to be the case for attempting to simulate anything.

At least this is my understanding, I could be mistaken somewhere.

I think this is also one possible answer to the famous 'zombie' question.

[interroboink]

(aside: I'm not especially arguing with you; just thinking out loud in response to what you wrote)

> Something waddles, quacks & lays eggs because it is a duck.

Or: something does those things, period. We notice several such somethings doing similar things, and come up with an umbrella term for them, for our own convenience: "duck." I'm not sure how far different that is from "is a duck", but it feels like a nonzero amount.

I guess where I'm going is: our labels for things are different from the "is-ness" of those things. Really, duck A and duck B are distinct from each other in many ways, and to call them by one name is in itself a coarse approximation.

So if "duckness" is a label that is purely derived from our observations, and separate from the true nature of the thing that waddles and quacks, then does some other thing (the robot duck) which also produces the same observations, also win the label?

Luckily, I'm a solipsist, so I don't have to worry about other things actually existing. Phew.

[geye1234]

I've never spoken to a self-declared solipsist before, though of course we all act like solipsists to a degree :-). Anyway, I will assume that solipsism is false for the rest of this post, that's another question.

It's amazing how many philosophical debates end up at the question of universals that you've just alluded to.

My own position, very briefly, is that when we predicate 'duck' (as in "this is a duck") of a given thing, we are describing reality, not just conveniently labeling some part of it in our own minds. If 'duck' is merely a label that we apply to something, then anything we predicate of 'duck' is merely something we predicate of our own mental categories. But this isn't so: the sentence 'ducks quack' refers to something real, not just our thoughts. But at the same time, the sentence is not referring to Duck A or Duck B, but to ducks in general. From this, it seems to follow that some general 'ducky-ness' must have a kind of existence (otherwise how could we predicate of it?), and that this 'ducky-ness' must be shared by everything that is a duck (otherwise, by what is it a duck?).

In the opposite scenario that you've described, all predication would be limited to our thoughts. Someone could say "ducks quack", and someone else could say "ducks never quack", and both would be right, because both would merely be describing their own thoughts. Obviously, all reason, science, possibility of communication, etc, is finished at this point :-)

Of course our labels can be wrong. Someone could mistake a swan for a duck. Also, there is infinite variation from duck to duck, so the 'ducky-ness' of each duck in no way tells us everything about that duck. Duck A and B are unique individuals. Also, the 'ducky-ness' only ever exists in a given duck; it's not like it has some independent ethereal existence.

[kelseyfrog]

Essentialism is the astrology of ontology.

[geye1234]

If you say so :-D