[Wittrs] Re: On the Mechanism of Understanding
- From: kirby urner <kirby.urner@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:56:07 -0700
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Stuart W. Mirsky<SWMirsky@xxxxxxx> wrote:
<< SNIP >>
> You confuse issues of metaphysics with issues of science I fear.
>
People confuse metaphysics with science fiction a lot too (maybe we
should consider them a single hybrid?).
Introspecting and writing about it isn't science I don't think.
Most this "consciounsness talk" isn't really physics, even if it's
physicists doing the talking.
I thought the Emperors New Mind (Sir Roger) was pointing in a good
direction in some ways.
I like the idea of "non-computable".
That's just my spin.
WIttgenstein supplies much needed sanity checks, lotsa kudos for
taking us back out of the clouds, grounding us in "ordinary language"
(our deep heritage, where it all begins and ends).
>> 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
That's OK. I was doing Cult of Athena earlier on this list, have a
whole blog about it I've cited. But you're not necessarily the guy
I'm counting on to make sense of it all. Sorry for these tangents,
but I've got work to do here. You're welcome to lurk of course.
>> 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?
>
I have no clear idea what you mean by "the issues we commenced with"
and I don't know what you mean by stream of consciousness. If you're
implying I don't work hard on these posts, that's incorrect. I'm
being meticulous and to the point (my points, but in a dialog format,
connecting to your points as I see fit).
I don't see you as "running the meeting" or anything.
>> You see I'm being internally consistent yes? As I say above, I've so
>> far seen nothing but fiction from Hawkins, science fiction.
>>
Guess not?
>> 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!
>
We're talking about the criteria we apply when we say someone
understands (whatever that may be).
I'm following the PI quite closely in pointing out that it's not about
first person testimony to the effect that one understands. That's
very important of course.
If a person avers he has no ability to fly a plane, doesn't understand
how to do it, we wouldn't put him at the controls of a plane (most
likely).
But even if a person avers he *does* have that ability, we likely
still need to test, no matter how vociferously (zealously) he
proclaims to understand how to pilot (unless we're already in the air,
no one else stepping forward -- prepare for a thrill ride then, lots
of movies go like this).
Endless similar other examples...
This is important to the *grammar* of what it means to understand.
You don't see the relevance? My introducing a "zealot" throws you
off? Sorry.
>> 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.
"Synthetic minds" is still in the realm of science fiction as far as
I'm concerned. Does a robot vacuum cleaner that doesn't fall down the
stairs have a synthetic mind? I'm guessing you'll say no.
It'd likely take awhile for you to teach us what a "synthetic mind"
might be like, and probably your most effective recourse would be to
point to science fiction movies like 'Artificial Intelligence'
(already on the syllabus, per earlier posts).
Is my mind "synthetic"?
You mean like polyester isn't a natural fiber but a man-made one, are
applying this meme in the realm of cognitive "science" to conjure some
imagery (fantasies). Anything more?
> 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.
He was denying the "aha moment" in itself constitutes "the meaning" of
"understanding". He explains why. The explanations are cogent but
have been repeated here too many times already so I won't do it again
(until another post maybe).
>> 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)".
>>
>
> ????
> 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!)
Yeah, likewise. Hawkins is "bunk philosophy" as far as I can tell,
but dressed up in the guise of science, so more likely to fool people.
I have made the link from TLP's waxing and waning to concepts of
Medieval philosophy in this archive. Feel free to search for these
nuggets. I have studied the subject, with professionals, at a top
university. I think I'm making good sense, but then so do you.
>> 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?
No, because you have your canned response to this issue.
You insist there's a separate but equally important meaning of
"understanding" that adheres to internal brain processes and/or
introspected private mental events, somehow connected (threads about
"causation" attach here).
You have no intention of being talked out of that view (Wittgenstein
would be the ticket, were you ever to tire of it).
It's a core belief you have. We're up against dogma.
So what else is new right?
>
>> 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!
>
OK, so you talked yourself into without that much help from Hawkins.
Congrats then.
>> 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.
>
With or without the benefit of Wittgenstein's insights, yes.
>
>> 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.
It's more like if there's stuff I'd like to say, about other matters
besides the points you bring up, then here is an OK and/or convenient
place to do it.
I'll post URLs in other venues, regarding my Cult of Athena stuff,
expecting my readers to simply ignore most of the other stuff.
But it's not like I think these thoughts are entirely irrelevant to
this thread (it's like "interesecting" -- killing two virtual birds
with one stone (or more than two (doing more with less))).
I've been casting Wittgenstein as a liberation philosopher and
spelling out what that means. To do so, I hearkened back to Romans
and Greeks, talked about different ways of handling subversive
thinking, counter-currents in intellectual history.
I've also talked about existentialism in connection with the world
waxing and waning.
My goal is to get some people up to speed on this Wittgenstein stuff,
but in connection with other concerns of a contemporary nature, as my
belief is philosophy needs to be applied to have meaning, needs to do
real work in the real world.
You seem to think something similar in that you're tracking the
cog-sci people, applaud their efforts as amateur philosophers trying
to solve the mind-body problem all over again.
I'm personally not invested in that agenda, but feel I should say why.
Responding to your posts gives valuable context and contrast. Hope
ya don't mind. You make a good foil.
>> > 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?
>
Your call. It's the quality of your own cogitation you need to be
concerned with. Apparently, you're happy to immerse yourself in this
kind of literature and consider it worthy.
However, I don't think Wittgenstein should be cast as some kind of
prototypical cognitive scientists. Rather, I think cognitive
scientists sound a lot like the old mind-body problem folks, dressed
up in slightly newer clothing.
Their science fiction (metaphysics) has computers in it now, is
probably the main difference from the 1800s version of this stuff.
I have the advantage of being rather up on computers so am not easily
snowed by hand wavy AI.
>> 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.
>
Maybe others will offer comments.
>> > 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!
>
Yeah, not very PC of me. Elsewhere I talk about nerds as the "larval
form" of geeks, the latter being gregarious and socially adept, more
like diplomats. If you're lucky, you'll morph from nerd to geek in
one lifetime.
I'm remembering how Wittgenstein was in the army, was a POW, taught
elementary school... (is that what it was). At least he didn't live
in some cubicle-cave in some office building. Life experience matters
in philosophy. As Kaufmann suggested: *by all means* judge a
philosophy by the philosopher (Heidegger's a case in point for him).
>> > 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?
>
Dunno, but it's in a public archive so maybe someone'll stumble on it
on 200 years and think it's the bee's knees.
Mostly though I'm thinking of a younger audience that has seen lots of
movies, does a lot of thinking over the web.
I'm giving lots of pointers to Youtubes and movies, not just because
Wittgenstein liked movies, but because I think philosophies need to
keep up, do the work needed to stay relevant.
If a philosophy completely ignores the great resource that is
hypertext... well, I'd be skeptical of its value, lets just leave it
at that.
Life is short, not a crime to make judgments, for you or for me.
>> 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!
>
Sigh.
>> 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
It's a thread you might want to consider starting, in light of
Edelman's evident confusion.
I think Hawkins could really use some help. You might want to give
him some? Maybe not.
Happy floundering then! :)
Kirby
Other related posts:
