On 03 Jan 2015, at 06:28, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]
] On Behalf Of Kim Jones
Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 8:55 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: "Animals think like autistic humans"
On 1 Jan 2015, at 2:52 pm, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <[email protected]
> wrote:
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]
] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 4:30 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: "Animals think like autistic humans"
On 12/31/2014 4:00 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
>>You seem to be saying that we can do nothing new about thinking.
No, not that at all. I am saying that first we need to understand
what thinking really is and move beyond our primitive
anthropocentric views that have come to us from our past. We have a
long heritage of thinking about what thinking is, so lots of
material to draw from.
The more humbly we come to understand that our self-aware inner
dialogue is the mind’s (simplified and summarized) narration of a
deeper and much vaster non verbalized intelligence which is that
which is doing the individuals *thinking*
OK, but then you can't stop the descend and you will need to say that
the thinking is done by the arithmetical realizations, but that is 3p
descriptible (even if infinite) so something has gone wrong (we get
trapped in a cinfusion between the 3p, []p, and the 1p, []p &p).
I believe it is better to get past the misconception that the inner
voice we casually *sense* as being ourselves is the actual
repository our being.
The inner voice use words, and so miss the []p & p. The conscious
person lives at the intersection of truth (sense, semantaic, religion,
infinite, p) and belief (science, syntax,representation, []p). The 1-I
is the person; it is an abstract well definite, despite unnameable. It
is not the set of "unconscious brain happenings", even if that person
result in part o those brain happenings.
Well, I suppose you can adopt this attitude to it. The mind is
infinitely mysterious and like the ocean, we will never get to the
bottom of it. "It all happens inside this black box".
With every year it is becoming less and less of a black box though!
Are you saying that neuroscience will never figure out how the mind
works in the brain? I disagree, it is really hard to try to keep up
with the pace of what is going on in brain/mind science; at every
orthogonal level; from ever finer grained knowledge, to the
incredible advances in available experimental tools.
Betting on levels, sometimes eliminating the person, and presented
often with a brain/mind identity thesis not compatible with mechanism.
I don't think we can understand the psyche, soul, mind without
understanding the need to backtrack in theology to Plato.
Or, alternatively, you could say that the mind is something that
is easy to understand when viewed as a pattern-reading and a pattern-
generating system.
Why must you pose this as an unavoidable alternative; as being an
either or proposition. That is a Manichean way of viewing things –
IMO. Seeing the mind a s a pattern recognition; patter generating
machine is useful *at times* but just because some intellectual tool
is useful for some tasks does not mean that it must therefore become
the only metric and means by which we view the mind. To state it in
those either/or terms is highly limiting.
When you need a hammer, by all means use a hammer, but just because
a hammer is the best tool for some jobs does not mean a hammer makes
the best toothpick!
No doubt about this.
Now we can easily see something of benefit: that we are excellent at
the former but particularly weak at the latter. Here is where we can
improve our thinking without bothering about the unconscious mind
and other dirty sewers that we at other times love to thresh around
in philosophically.
I find it highly curious how you describe the unconscious mind as
being a dirty sewer – speak for yourself Kim.. where you see a sewer
I see endless unfolding wonder… an inner kaleidoscope beckoning and
waiting discovery.
You se something I should explain oneday: the creativity of the
universal machine, and the productivity of its complement, and of
truth. (Assuming computationalism, of course). That has been
discovered by Emil Post, and that is what makes computationalism quite
plausible. But it is no part of the person itself, it makes only
richer his/her reality. It is the wonder of the unknown, but you
eliminate yourself if you identify yourself to any 3p conception of
that unknown, which is the reductionist trap of the (weak)-materialists.
From below, I guess I should say two words about the theoretical
computer scientist notion of creative and productive set. But then we
need to remind the math of diagonalization and all that. A
recursively enumerable set (computably generable) is creative, when
its complement is such that there is a recursive function phi_k such
that for all W_i subset of the complement, phi_k(i) provides an
example of an element in the complemnt missed by the W_i. This allows
the "creative machine" to climb in the transfinite, in the arts of
thinking out of the box, thinking laterally, refuting fake
reductionism, distinguish one's soul from any machine, etc.
Neuroscience still studies local interface without recognizing what is
interfaced to what. They have the right computationalist theory of the
mind, but the wrong theory of matter and what brains are made of, and
wrong on their status in the mind-body relation. I don't believe in
brains, it is all in the head (note the pun :).
Bruno
Thinking is the exploration of experience for a purpose.
Kim… you seem to have a habit of saying what thinking is and is not…
think about it J
Is what you think thinking is the end all and be all of thinking –
or is it how your mind has come to terms with the unfathomable
mystery of life? Thinking is many things and takes many guises..
thinking is not even necessarily verbal – or do you exclude musical
and visual genius from thought?
Kim what do you really know about thinking? The fact that you want
to pin it down into a small bullet list indicates to me that you
seem driven by an inner need to order it and classify it. You are
like a thought librarian trying to categorize it and put it in a
neat order arrayed according to some Dewey Decimal System.
Don’t get me wrong – this is not bad in and of itself. Classifying
and ordering plays a part in understanding. I think you take your
classification system a little too seriously though, because more
than you may know life is a laugh.
OK, there are things tugging at us that we cannot know about or
understand. We are free to define the purpose of thinking but to get
better at it we need to be better explorers of experience.
No arguments with that… but how to become better explorers of
experience? I think each of us may have his or her own best way (or
path if you will) and am not arguing that your methodology is
worthless. Clearly I agree that the mind is a superb pattern
recognition engine for example; or that that the distilling optic of
reductionism is a valuable tool in arriving at a clear headed
understanding of reality.
What I am communicating to you is that sometimes it is good to set
the tool aside to steep in the awareness of the greater self that
transcends the tool… the verbal symbolic reifying tool of our self-
narrating minds.
You can argue about what's on the map or what the map means, but
someone has to make the map for there to be something to argue about.
And the map is being made – at the micro and nano scale of the
brain. We are mapping the brains connectome and classifying the many
various types of neurons. We are gaining clearer understanding of
synaptogenesis and all the other nano scale dynamic processes at
work in the brain; of its micro structure at the level of individual
neuron columns arrayed in a vast interwoven matrix of such columns.
The map is being made. But it is not the map you are speaking about.
Though there is nothing inherently wrong with your attempts at
devising an (or communicating an existing) über classification
system, I believe it is the wrong approach to building a map of the
mind. Better to build that based on the brain – IMO – e.g. from the
physical measurable quantifiable entities of the physical brain that
give rise to and upon which exists the dynamic network that we
perceive as our minds.
Thinking is the channelling or the processing of perceptions in some
way. The result is a map that is supposed to give insight into
possibilities for action.
Creativity needs to be considered as part of thinking as well to
avoid the limitation of always seeing everything via the routine or
the standard or existing patterns of recognition. Generative
thinking: the least developed and the least understood part of our
minds. Perception says what is (recognition). Thinking allows the
PATTERNING OF perception to form concepts and ideas that contain
already compressed versions of the initial perceptions.
Why the need to classify the mystery of the mind according to some
arbitrary intellectual ordering? Seems like you want to squeeze the
poetry out of existence in order to tidy it up a bit.
-Chris
K
Brent
The nipple is the only truly intuitive interface.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
