[Wittrs] Re: On the Mechanism of Understanding
- From: "Stuart W. Mirsky" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:15:17 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kirby urner <kirby.urner@...> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Stuart W. Mirsky<SWMirsky@...> 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"?
>
It's "brain people" nerdy or not, who are involved in this discourse. Ordinary
language is well and good and it's important we never lose sight of it. But
there are ordinary language users and ordinary language users. In this case the
issue is the "ordinary language" of science and, in particular, of the science
of the brain. You can't push science aside JUST to talk about what the guy in
the street means by a word! Does THAT ordinary language affect the work of
particle physics? Biology? Why expect it to determine what neurobiolgists or
cognitive scientists can say?
> Laymen used to get bullied into believing that, but are less likely
> nowadays (post Wittgenstein) to just go along with such yammer.
>
You confuse issues of metaphysics with issues of science I fear.
<snip>
> 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.
>
This has gone so far afield, I'm afraid you've lost me Kirby. We were talking
about whether Hawkins and Edelman provide some useful ideas for understanding
what the phenomenon of understanding is or if there are others and whether
Wittgensteinian ideas oblige us to toss these guys and here you are talking
about Athena and cults and Nashville and fascism . . . !
> > 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).
>
Ah, so this is no longer about the issues we commenced with then? It's about
stream of consciousness?
> << 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).
>
This isn't about zealotry or, at least, that's not what I was talking about!
> >> 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."
If he is there's something mental to talk about. If the aim is to produce
synthetic minds or to understand natural ones, then we want to talk about
what's going on in this case. No black boxes here.
> 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.
>
I'm not the one who went after behaviorism! I merely pointed out that
Wittgenstein does not seem to me to have been one. But if he was denying the
"aha moment" as you sometimes say, then maybe Gerardo and Glen have it right
after all.
> >> 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)).
>
Looks more like the cult of medieval foolery to me. Have you read Alan Gordon's
Fool's Guild series? (A mystery series set in the medieval world and premised
on the idea that there was a secret organization fighting the baddies of Old
Europe disguised as jesters and troubadours.) I'm guessing you might like it.
(For myself, as you can see, I've given up trying to address your remarks here
in a philosophically serious way. Best to just let 'er riff!)
> >> 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".
>
Are we back to serious again then? Should I even hazard a real reply?
> I think one can definitely talk yourself into thinking that way and
> authors like Hawkins will help you do it.
>
I first wrote about my experience with that sign a number of years ago on other
lists, long before reading Hawkins!
> I also think you can talk yourself out of thinking that way, in which
> case Wittgenstein is your man.
>
Why aim to talk oneself into or out of it??? The point is to see what makes the
most sense in terms of what's really going on.
> 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.
>
Well you once said I "didn't talk like a Wittgensteinian"! I'm guessing you're
probably right but I'm not sure you do either. He was pretty focused on the
issues he took up and tended to home in on the target. I get the feeling your
method is to shoot as many arrows as you can and hope something hits . . . or
not worrying about hitting anything at all, just enjoy the flying feathered
shafts.
> 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 that 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.
>
Assuming it's a fly bottle though. What if it ain't! Should we treat it that
way anyway? Just because it seems like fun or we're not interested in the field?
> > it can, then why cut oneself off from those writing in that field? You
> > remind me of my old martial arts teacher. He 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)).
>
I think you overdetermine their purpose here.
> > 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).
>
I suspect that here you are being rather judgmental towards introverts. Not
very PC of you! However there is plenty of evidence in Monk and even in Culture
and Value that he was something of an introvert as well as being highly
introspective!
> >> ... 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.
>
I wonder who here it actually works for then?
> > 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?
>
Edelman will tell you they really aren't and I suspect Hawkins will concur but
that is just the point. By not being the same thing everytime they will be. Ah
paradox. Aha!
> 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
>
Oy, I'm not holding my breath.
SWM
Other related posts:
