[Wittrs] Re: On the Mechanism of Understanding
- From: kirby urner <kirby.urner@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:02:32 -0700
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Stuart W. Mirsky<SWMirsky@xxxxxxx> wrote:
<< SNIP >>
>> To say "understanding is a mental process" is a first turn off the
>> main road into some little side streets neighborhood, an ethnic
>> conclave of some kind.
>>
>
> That's an odd way of seeing it, as if there is this one road that is
> official and which we should use and to turn off it is to somehow break a
> Wittgensteinian traffic rule. In fact, I think there is no such rule in this
> case.
>
Not a Wittgensteinian rule, but a rule of ordinary language.
Just go out there with a recording crew and come back with your findings.
Where, outside of nerdy inner circles of brain people, other schoolish
types, do you get people proclaiming "understanding is a mental
process"?
Laymen used to get bullied into believing that, but are less likely
nowadays (post Wittgenstein) to just go along with such yammer.
>> Of course when we go to the movies or watch Youtubes, we get to share
>> a lot of the same imagery -- partly why I cite YouTubes a lot, wanting
>> to build up a database of "clips in common". You could call this a
>> "shared mental process" and get away with it in some circles. Others
>> would raise objections, saying that's not the "right way" to talk.
>>
>> It's important to our civilization that we know a lot of us watch the
>> same TV programs.
>
> ?????
>
!!!!!
Re Hawkins:
>> To me this sounds like someone making stuff up out of whole cloth. I
>> could write similar stuff, fill books with it, but I'm not sure I'd
>> regard it as work. I shouldn't be paid for it. I should get a
>> work-study stipend, yes, but not for this "work" in particular.
<< Ellispsis >>
>> I don't see Hawkins as proposing or explaining. I see him as
>> storytelling, with the brain as his heroic protagonist, his principal
>> agent. He's a myth maker.
>> I think it's easy to piggy-back on ordinary language to spiel out such
>> stuff. I don't consider it science so much as engaging (to some)
>> science fiction.
<< HYPERLINK TO AAA >>
>
> I don't think so but who knows, we are rarely the best judges of ourselves.
>
Exactly! And so much grammar is "weighted" to accommodate that fact.
The individual versus the much larger group -- so much hinges on that
situation, and civilization is a lot about protecting a lone voice
from the mob, because long experience has shown you need those oracles
and prophets, however unpopular (real stinkers, some of 'em).
Probably the best solution is to institutionalize them, versus
treating them as subversives. Make 'em comedians.
The Cult of Athena was wise to protect its gifted inner circle at
Delphi (later Nashville), despite their challenge to Apollonian
fascism, whereas the Romans crucified anyone they disagreed with, such
that we tend to ridicule them in the rear view mirror, as one of our
stupider (crueler) world civilizations.
> Well you were responding to a point I had made. I don't think you want to
> say that it is impossible for someone to get off topic!
I don't necessarily "respond to your points" when I interleave my
thinking. I'm making points next to yours, connecting the dots for
the benefit of other readers.
You've given me fair warning that you have a reputation for assuming
control of the narrative, have little patience for minute taking etc.
So that should be part of my model. The great thing about
asynchronous lists like this is we each have as much of the floor as
we like (keeping it short here).
<< AAA HYPERLINK FROM ABOVE >>
> Has Hawkins written fiction? If so I'm unaware of it.
>
You see I'm being internally consistent yes? As I say above, I've so
far seen nothing but fiction from Hawkins, science fiction.
That's not to dismiss it as irrelevant. I'm aware that science
fiction is what most people consider philosophy.
>> I'm saying you don't want to artificially enumerate these as separable
>> meanings of "understanding", imagining some fictitious dictionary
>> where "my meaning" (the "selfish" 1st person one) always rises to the
>> top as "the point" whereas what people actually mean by
>> "understanding" in the great by and large (Italy) just flies by out
>> the window, of no particular interest.
>>
>
> Why not? And why is it to artificially enumerate or separate them? Certainly
> you don't want to say that all meanings are equal in all contexts!
>
Not equal (whatever that means in this context -- nothing much), but
part of a seamless web. It's *critical* to the grammar around
"understanding" that we're allowed to second guess the zealot who
reports some supreme "AHA!" illumination experience. That just
*isn't* going to substitute for passing real tests (see below).
>> Wittgenstein goes to a lot of work to divorce "understanding" from any
>> specific "aha!" experience.
>
> Does he? Where? Yes he talks a lot about behavioral criteria. But he also
> talks about seeing things in new ways. What is that but to have an aha
> moment?
I owe you a dig in the PI now. I'll get back to ya (or someone else
wanna help me out? -- anyone else tracking this?).
Also: don't confuse 3rd person accounts with "behaviorist" accounts.
I can say, in the 3rd person "he's having a deeply private moment with
himself, although you wouldn't guess this from his demeanor." I sound
more like a British novelist than a behaviorist, but it's still 3rd
person. Your habit of popping up the "behaviorist nail" so you can
hit it with that hammer of yours (your canned retort), whenever the
3rd person rears its ugly head, is not persuasive to British
novelists.
>> Be suspicious. At least just for a
>> day, learn to "hate" your internal process. That might be impossible
>> for you, but it's good advice I'm thinking, if the point is to grasp
>> the PI.
>
> Maybe I'll just have to pass on your grasp of it and stick with mine then.
>
Remember, I said "just for a day". You won't even give me a day. I'm
really not much of a guru for you, obviously. Plus I was planning to
charge you like $150, so even more a deterrent. :)
<religious_rant>
Just for a day, if you're used to thinking like a Jew, think like a
Christian. Just for a day, if you're a Christian, think like a
Buddhist.
Can one even do it? Are these realistic enjoinders? Getting into
another mindset takes work. Hollywood actors will tell you as much.
The had to check into a mental hospital and live with the patients for
over a week, before rolling a final cut for 'One Flew Over...'.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073486/
Whether or not one can, I'd say the Christian teaching, to walk a mile
in another's shoes, or Rumi's teaching, about "giving another your
head" (Rumi), prove that wise teachers in all these prophetic faiths
were keen to get their followers out of their own heads and into the
heads of others, if only for a few minutes.
Project yourself *out* of your set ways (another meaning of liberation
-- and I think both the TLP and PI were liberation philosophies,
advertise philosophy as liberating).
< biblical_exegesis >
This'd be my interpretation of Jesus's teaching to hate your own
mother (Matthew 10:34-37): if you wanna grow in the Light (Quaker
talk), then experience your projections (world) as suffocating, come
to hate them, your projections around mom a great place to gain
traction (doesn't mean you treat her shabbily -- this is your inward
jihad, not hers (she's got her own cross to bear)).
You need to hate yourself to save yourself, but "yourself" and "your
world" are misconceived as two different animals at the bottom of the
ladder -- so hate the world on purpose and see what that gets ya (to a
new world?).
< /biblical_exegesis >
< more_buddhist_sounding >
How I might put it: enlightenment is precisely the ability to not
think the same way anymore, forever.
And there's no upper limit on how many such experiences one might
enjoy (if enjoy is the right word -- the gurus say "bliss out" but
maybe that's just PR, so you'll <est> keep forking over those $150s
</est> ).
</ more_buddhist_sounding >
<quaker version="2">
Kafka has a good story about this, involving gates and guards. Is he
in the gothic tradition? Kathy?
Reminds me of Stephen King.
</quaker>
</religious_rant>
>> Put Hawkins and Minsky aside. They're getting in your way.
>
> You sound like a religious teacher, a guru. Is that really an appropriate
Yes, as a Quaker I have to live up to that, as we regard all Friends
as religious teachers, by definition.
I don't like the word guru much though. I like Uma Thurman's dad, is
he a guru. He's a dharma talker (rhymes with horse whisperer sorta).
> way to approach Wittgenstein do you think? Would Wittgenstein have wanted us
> to put other thinkers aside? Did he do that when he criticised Freud and
> Turing and others?
>
Serious scholarship involves setup and teardown (same as with
test-driven development).
It's just like in wine tasting, gourmet cooking. Don't eat that
strong cheese right before eating that other thing.
Not claiming to be the big expert here, but the analogy holds.
If your aim is to "get Wittgenstein", then here are some books,
movies, Youtubes that might help... friendly advice, which others
might follow (so I'll keep giving it, not seeing you as my student
audience so much as a dramatic foil peer teacher (couldn't ask for a
better pairing in some ways)).
You're thinking "Hawkins helps with our understanding of Wittgenstein"
whereas I'm thinking "Hawkins is like a truck you'll need to pass if
you wanna keep up with LW's Ferrari, so put on that passing lane
signal and put that pedal to the metal! (honk honk)".
>> You can always go back to them, once you've had the gestalt switches
>> Wittgenstein is hoping to induce (yes, more "aha!" experiences --
> > not denying their importance,
> But that is precisely what you WERE doing just a little while ago! (You'd
> probably be better off to skip the stream of consciousness response mode and
> do a little more editing and pruning before clicking "send". Then you
> wouldn't have to deal with these internal contradictions. -- Hope this
> doesn't get me in too much trouble with Sean but this really did seem to
> warrant saying.)
No, never denied their importance, said over and over these were
relevant, have connected to what I call "gestalt shifts" with the gold
door, the true gold of philosophy, the true point of the TLP and PI,
the doorway beyond mere facts, to the ethical dimension and yada yada.
I'm being *highly* consistent, I think Sean will see that immediately
(a kind of referee figure, might have a whistle and funny hat, like in
Alice and Wonderland).
On the other hand, why I go on and on here at some length is to show
that I really do understand the PI. This helps with my lobbying work
in other contexts. I could use the kudos, need all the street cred I
can get. Uphill slogs require traction.
Day job as lobbyist work FYI:
http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=1975367&tstart=0
Mere experiences of illumination, however gratifying *to me* do not in
themselves constitute any kind of "proof" of my understanding.
That's just how the grammar works. I still need to do the work of
unfurling, unfolding, so that my thinking might be judged. We all
need to do that, to demonstrate understanding, not just me.
We each need to "continue the series" (try to walk the talk) in some
sense, if we wanna be taken seriously as Wittgenstein follower's (want
to claim him as a mentor (doesn't mean just regurgitating his stuff
though, gotta end world hunger)).
>> Example: if you think "race" is a useful concept, you learn to see
>> people as "pure" or "mixed" specimens, and this colors your world. On
>> the other hand, if you know a lot of genetics, know there's not 'race
>> gene', nor any secure basis for the concept in science, then after
>> awhile you stop seeing 'pure' and 'mixed' people -- what a crazy idea!
>>
>
> So there IS a right way of looking at this? If so, then the question of
> whether understanding in humans is made up of aha type moments strung
> together in a history of experiences could be right, too! In that case, then
> what would be the point of taking time out to smell the Necker Cube?
>
Look at how "understanding" is actually used in "vox populi" (everyday
language) and see for yourself if it's "the name of a private mental
process consisting of sequences of images and aha moments strung
together like necklaces".
I think one can definitely talk yourself into thinking that way and
authors like Hawkins will help you do it.
I also think you can talk yourself out of thinking that way, in which
case Wittgenstein is your man.
Where we differ is in our sense of style, and which is closer to
Wittgenstein's. The audience will have some feedback on this maybe.
You're finding Hawkins thinking to be "handsome like Wittgenstein's"
(OK?) whereas I'm thinking "sloppy, not crystal clear and precise,
like my hero Wittgenstein's is/was".
>> You can see the world as "flat" and not know it, then fly around the
>> globe, go into space, have some other experiences, and report later "I
>> never realized it, but I used to think of the world as 'flat' -- I
>> couldn't go back to that way of seeing even if I wanted to at this
>> point" (like looking at words in a language you know, and being
>> *unable* to see it as "just squiggles" -- "the brain has changed!" I
>> can hear Hawkins saying).
>>
>
> Again, this assumes a right way hat we can reach. If Wittgenstein's thinking
> can't be applied in a field like cognitive science, then what good is it? If
Maybe it *frees* you from "cognitive science". That might be a really
welcome development for some people trapped in its fly bottle. Think
of all those years you could have wasted! Egad.
> it can, then why cut oneself off from those writing in that field? You
> remind me of my old martial arts teacher. Her insisted that those who
> entered his school give up eveything they had previously known or thought
> they knew about martial arts, fighting, etc., and learn things from scratch,
> his way. I can see how this makes some sense with some people in martial
> arts (though I have seen the rule violated numerous times successfully). But
> should we approach philosophy like that, too, relying on the master-student
> model?
That's how the master had to learn as well i.e. the "teacher
authority" is not exempt from practicing what she preaches.
But then why have masters at all right? That's why the old saying "if
on your journey you meet the Buddha, kill him!" -- kind of shock jock
dharma talk, but you get the point: if you have some complex about
"authority" then you'll never get anywhere, so take action!
Thanks for comparing me to a martial arts teacher by the way. I've
used that myself, like in:
http://www.4dsolutions.net/presentations/p4t_notes.pdf
>> Wittgenstein wants to radically rewire your brain. You can fight
>> that, say he's got it wrong, or you can take the red pill (you may
>> remember I suggested taping one to the back of the PI as a marketing
>> gimmick (it's just a placebo, doesn't really get you out of The Matrix
>> (that'll take work!))).
>>
>
> I'm sorry but I reject the Alice in Wonderland-Matrix analogy. Wittgenstein
> is not working wonders. He was a profound and original thinker but he wasn't
> Morpheus or Neo or any other mythological archetype. Isn't it enough that he
> added so much to the philsophical project?
Hey, those were just movies. The metaphor of "enlightenment" may be
expressed in many ways (awakening, light going on).
As I've said, I consider it obvious the TLP and PI self-advertise as
"liberation philosophies" i.e. they both promise new ways of looking
to those who read them for meaning. The "judgment day" meme is caught
up with it, in that the world "waxes and wanes" (independently of what
is the case -- so don't say "rightly or wrongly" as that's just more
empiricism talking (TLP spin) and this isn't about surrendering to
tainted beliefs, or true ones (rather it's about developing new
certainties (post PI spin)).
> He was an introvert to the day he died on all the evidence available.
>
Capable of introspection, obviously. Not withdrawn or aloof though,
by all evidence available. Didn't have his head up his ass, the way a
lot of introverts do (dime a dozen).
>> ... or how one's own mind *deceives*, is a sucker for misleading
>> pictures. He's taking on hundreds if not thousands of years of
>> philosophy, shifting the context. He's like a super duper athlete in
>> some ways, had to work out intensively. The PI is philosophy on
>> steroids compared to most of the anemic metaphysics you'll get from
>> the bully pulpits.
>>
>
> This kind of hyperbole doesn't work for me.
>
Not surprised. However, we have our readers to think about. We're
here on stage, doing our thing.
> We can be wrong in our aha's and we can be right. The question though isn't
> if we're are one or the other but that both are examples of something
> happening in our brains. I have yet to see an aha moment in a stuffed teddy
> bear (Dorothy's Scarecrow friend notwithstanding).
>
> SWM
How does one tell whether all these various "ahas" (the "on target
ones", the "misleading ones", the "slow dawnings", the "brilliant
flashes" etc. etc.), are all examples of "the same thing" in the brain
or not? MRI?
The idea of "identity across introspected experiences" is one
Wittgenstein tackles, as he encounters it a lot among the introverts
he deals with.
For another thread maybe.
Kirby
Other related posts:
