Hi Squonk & DMB, Squonk, the "point" of your though experiment no doubt concerns the static (patterned) and/or dynamic (unpatterned) quality of any pre-linguistic experience (or lack of it) in human infants. You've said as much already.
You seem to be agreeing (with DMB) that this is a "developmental psychology" area, a much previously studied subject by both relevant anthropologists and philosophers. Be nice to develop that ? You agreed with me much earlier that earlier, much recorded, brain-in-a-vat thought experiments, also considered brains deprived of sensory experince, but went on to suggest that such though experiments had not considered the "moral" angle - hence your own thought experiment. (I'm not so sure you're right there - but I digress). So, Squonk, could you adddress DMB's expressed "stunned" concern, that whatever the "point" of the hypothetical thought experiment the practical idea of various sensory deprivations of human infants (brains of real living humans) is itself morally "suspect" to begin with. Like, Duh ! Obviously. Sorry to ask. I expect you are deliberately having some fun with DMB, but if you don't address his point, you would accept that it is getting in the way of the rest of the thought experiment being taken seriously ? "Schroedinger's Cat" doesn't sound like addressing the question to me. Or I could just "get me coat". Fascinating either way. Suspending disbelief if OK by me, BTW. Ian On 7/1/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Squonk said: > Here is an argument: The pre lingual state can not be remembered because > there > are no static patterns to remember. Therefore, not even Zennies can > remember the > pre lingual state. So, how can it be asserted that this state is > not?identical > to another? > > dmb replied: > But there are countless accounts of this dynamic state and so they > obviously can > remember it. > > Hi David, > It seems to me the state informs a static interpretation. I think it is > this to which you are referring. > This also explains how it is possible to hijack this state in a static > interpretation for other ends such as religion. etc. > If anyone claims to be able to remember this state then, as the state is > not possible to remember, (memory being a static construction) they are > mistaken. > > David: > And the infant's inability to give it any meaning or recall it > later is one of the key difference between babies and mystics. This > inability to > preserve it is exactly what I meant when I said that for an infant the > experience is "literally meaningless". Your argument is just a re-statement > of > my argument, the one that supposedly wasn't given. > ? > s: Not so David if you will carefully attend to what is being stated: The > pre lingual state can not be remembered. If mystics claim to be able to > remember anything, it is a static construction that delineates the whole > remembrance. > Note: In both cases the state is not remembered. > > David: > Apparently you're unaware of the fact, but pre-verbal infants and infants > in > general have been the object of quite a lot of study. These studies form > the > basis of the principles of developmental psychology. Among the classical > pragmatists, George Herbert Mead was the expert that Dewey and James looked > to > most. He was able to show how the social self forms first and must be in > place > before the individualistic ego can emerge, which seems to be quite > consistent > with the way third level social patterns have to be in place before > intellectual > patterns can emerge. Maslow and Piaget would be more widely known. They > also > show that human development occurs in stages and that the lower stages > remain > even while more and more are added. Seems like every one I've ever > encountered > has a similar hierarchy and I bet there are others I don't even know about. > You > can ask Mr. Google and find out for yourself. I suspect he'll tell you the > same > thing. > > s: The patterns you indicate can not be a dynamic state for this reason: > Dynamic states are unpatterned. > It's apples and oranges isn't it? > I'm not doubting what you say is correct above is correct, but if these > experiences are patterned then they can't be a dynamic state. > > David: > All this seems completely obvious and reasonable to me and so I'm baffled > as to > why you're resisting it so relentlessly. Its like you have a grudge or > something. > > s:?You are referring to static patterns: the first static patterns laid > down here can not be the dynamic state in question because dynamic states > are un patterned. > > David: > I'm also a bit stunned at your lack of concern for the hypothetical test > subjects. You're talking about robbing people of their lives, sir. May I > suggest > that you ponder the full meaning of that? > > s:?Schrodinger's cat. > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
