3
   

Are We Really Thinking ?

 
 
mickalos
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2010 02:45 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:


Did you notice that Mickalos completely misunderstood what I was speaking of... it was about association...meaning through association...not the fact that the parrot can mimic language...I even spoke on Pavlov...anyway pointless...



The point was that a differential responsive dispositions on their own are not enough for thought or talk. Pavlov's notion of a conditioned reflex is exactly the sort of thing meant when I talked about acquired reliable differential responsive dispositions. They say the first sign of madness is quoting yourself, but I will risk it: "parrots can be trained to respond differentially to certain stimuli. For example, they can be trained to say "red" in the presence of a red colour swatch. Borrowing Robert Brandom's terminology I would call this an acquired reliable differential responsive disposition, but you might equally say that the parrot has been conditioned to say red in the presence of red colour swatches."

When I say "trained to say 'red' in the presence of a red colour swatch" it is fairly obvious what form this training takes. I hold the colour swatch in front of the parrot's face and say "Red" until it repeats, then I give it a treat. This is associative learning, but it is not thought, nor is the parrot a language user. A well trained parrot might say "red" when you hold up the appropriate swatch, but it won't do anything when you ask it why. Nor will it realise that it was wrong if you reveal a trick of the light. Parrots are no more capable of thought than Pavlov's dogs; reliably salivating at the tinkling of a bell is not an indication of thought.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2010 02:58 pm
Quote:
For example, they can be trained to say "red" in the presence of a red colour swatch. Borrowing Robert Brandom's terminology I would call this an acquired reliable differential responsive disposition, but you might equally say that the parrot has been conditioned to say red in the presence of red colour swatches."


First of all there is n´t such a thing as "red"...you are not seeing "red" you are "building" red given the stimuli association to your brains response...

The parrot does not understand reality as you do not...both "understand" differently according with their functional capability´s of interaction...the only thing one might argue about is the progressive level of complexity from one to another point of view...and even that, well..
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2010 03:05 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Imagine the opposite...imagine that "Red" is actually "Green" but given your brain apparatus when you look at green you always see red...is that which you are seeing false ? hell no ! ...if one understands that such is the result of a functional operation between your brain and the green which you see as red...

...that (the above mentioned operation) transforms reality but still is valid provided one knows what one is referring to...the function and not the "thing"... or better, the "thingness of the object" is the circumstantial, yet valid, true objective function...

...now, from there apply the same principle to thought and concepts...
the "object thingness" in the thought is the function as the "object thingness" in a translation is the function and not the "substance" of the words one uses...everything is convertible and yet, valid !
0 Replies
 
Arjuna
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2010 04:19 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

"Self" is already a function between inter related agents Arj..."Thing" is also circumstantially functional given certain dynamics, and yet none of this opposes Truth...of course those "agents" under the self, which form the "effect" of self are, at their lower web layer, also "functional circumstantial beings" born out of other relations and so on...(they all are True and Valid)
Yes. The idea of the self is held by the mind in contrast to the not-self. Seeing that they're two sides of the same coin, the mind now holds the idea of unity... contrasted to multiplicity. It finally sees many from one... which can only be contrasted to nothing.

What we have here is the idea of a static governing structure.... like the steps of a dance... a mathematical function... or a language. It's all the same thing. It's called pattern.

Would the pattern exist in our absence?
If one answers no... that would have to mean that we are the pattern. One couldn't speak of being created by the pattern anymore than one could say that we created it. Chicken... egg.

If one answers yes... then we are separate from the pattern. That's excellent since we observe it (and there must be separation between observer and observed.) But separated how? Isn't the whole in the parts? Looks like we actually are the pattern.

Say the pattern is eternal. No genealogy necessary. This relieves us of the massive temptation to spout some state of the art message about the history of the universe.... in the language of our time.

Aha! The language of our time. Our language. This implies one underlying language. One pattern which is known to us... because it's in us. Bubbling to the surface in varied forms... I just figured out what you meant by "functional circumstantial beings."

Hope you're warm and cozy... it's freezing here.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2010 05:48 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
The "why it works" is ultimately doomed to the infinite regress. Re-read my point on the limitations of "a satisfactory explanation". You are trying but failing to punch your way out of an epistemological bag. Even straight analytical philosophy could not handle "causality". Under Kant it ended up as a perceptual a priori projected by "an observer" onto the world.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2010 06:09 pm
@Arjuna,
By "self evoked by language becoming apparent", I mean that transcendence of language allows a view of "self" as "an agent" ( a subject like "others") which is grammatically required to perform an action (verb) within a linguistic string. The "I" is a node within a semantic network which segments and dynamically re-presents (involves re-living) of inter-relationships. The debatable persistence of a "unified self" is more likely to be the social consequences of the abstract persistence of the word "I" or of one's "name" rather than its association with a dynamically changing body. Thus if experience comes into it, we are talking about the honest experience of the dis-unity of self, or the recognition that we might spend our time fulfilling social obligations entered into by that "other self" who happened to share our name at the time !
wayne
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2010 06:16 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
You and I are on the page, I think there's an attempt at dissembly going on.
Information seems the best word for the task to me, don't know what else we should call that.
Oh well, guess we can't say quarks could be binary code yet anyway.
0 Replies
 
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2010 08:08 pm
@fresco,
You know the self of now isn't the same as the self of then. That knowledge is intellectual. It comes from an objectification of experience... accessing memory/imagination in which time is a stream you move through.

The only way to experience that disunity is through the intellect.

Direct experience of being alive is whole... now. Reflection on it through the intellect adds to the experience.... makes it richer... multi-layered.
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Dec, 2010 10:31 pm
@wayne,
wayne wrote:

Or are we just organizing information?
It seems as though we are gathering, processing, and organizing information.
Do we, then, ever have an original thought?


well if I gave you the same information as Newton had , do you think you could have come up with Calculas ?
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 05:20 am
@north,
There are a lot of different ways to organize information. Each and every individual has a different perspective.
That's why humans, working together can accomplish so much.
Our particular manner of , individually, organizing info is unique. However, logic dictates that those organizations will quite often be the same. The info doesn't change, a one is a one is a one, we err in our perceptions.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 03/03/2021 at 02:47:35