Since green-eyed people are not more likely to have black hair, or vice versa, and they don’t share any other characteristics in common, why have a word for “wiggin”?
I suppose it could still be a useful word if you bring human values into the mix. Suppose I really like people with green eyes and black hair; it might be nice to have a word for them.
You can take “being liked by you” as a characteristics of “wiggins”. So the underlying message of the article still holds. Only in the original article it didn’t become quite clear that the bayesian inference you can make does not neccessarily have to be perceived by humans as being about the object that you name. In this case the word allows someone to make a bayesian inference about you. So the associated word does correspond to a performable bayesian inference and is thus justified as the article claims.
I suppose it could still be a useful word if you bring human values into the mix. Suppose I really like people with green eyes and black hair; it might be nice to have a word for them.
You can take “being liked by you” as a characteristics of “wiggins”. So the underlying message of the article still holds. Only in the original article it didn’t become quite clear that the bayesian inference you can make does not neccessarily have to be perceived by humans as being about the object that you name. In this case the word allows someone to make a bayesian inference about you. So the associated word does correspond to a performable bayesian inference and is thus justified as the article claims.