Nick, Those were Glen's words, not mine.
*-- Russ Abbott* *_____________________________________________* *** Professor, Computer Science* * California State University, Los Angeles* * My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688* * Google voice: 747-*999-5105 Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/ * vita: *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/ CS Wiki <http://cs.calstatela.edu/wiki/> and the courses I teach *_____________________________________________* On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Steve Smith <sasm...@swcp.com> wrote: > Glen - > > Right. I tried to say that the root of language is the ability to > "point at", but that what we call language is built on top of that root. > But I subsequently admitted that, if _everything_ we do as living > organisms is built atop that root, then saying it's also the root of > language is useless. My subsequent caveat is based on my (massively > ignorant) reading of people like Rosen and such who claim a closure of > some kind is the definition of life. > > Good clarification... and I (think we) agree that a nounless language is > an odd thing to consider indeed. I *like* the nonduality that the > rheomode (and I believe Navajo?) carries explicitly in it's preference for > *not* distinguishing subject from object, but I'm not sure what a > process/verb/predicate only language would be? Maybe creatures such as > the Cetaceans are more prone to this given their somewhat > fluid/flux/gradient environment (compared to our own generally discretized > "chunky" environment?) Or advanced Jellyfish-like Gas Bag sentients > living in the upper atmosphere of Jupiter? > > Note that I included not just the appendage with which to point, but the > neurological structure that allows us to empathize. > > And is it possible that this neurological structure literally co-evolved > with language itself? I presume you use the phrase "appendage with which > to point" fairly metaphorical as we know plenty of people who can point > quite effectively with: their finger (pick any one of several for nuanced > implication); their gaze; their shoulder; their head; their chin; their > lips... Do Dolphins and Orcas point? I do believe the ones in captivity > have no trouble understanding various pointing gestures including gaze and > appendage. How much does sharing some basic language (structure?) get > involved in empathic understanding? > > That's critical. > E.g. Sometimes my cats will look where I point. But not very often. > For the most part, they look at the tip of my finger. Do cats have > "language" ... well, it all depends on your definition. I would say No, > because they don't have the root of language I'm looking for ... or at > least mine don't seem to. ;-) I'd be interested in the neural > mechanisms of the pointing dog breeds. > > I've had pointing breeds and *their* pointer in my experience is really > their gaze, with which their posture follows. I did not train them in this > regard, just observed their instinctual nature. > > I've never had a dog that actually understood *my* pointing. I could drop > a bit of food in the kitchen and when asking for help cleaning it up, no > amount of pointing would help right up to moving the pointing finger they > were staring at all the way down to the actual object. I would do better > to just avoid stepping on the bit of food for a few moments and let the dog > find it with their nose. But silly me, I always try to engage as I would > with a human. My 1 year old granddaughter seemed to understand pointing > soon after her eyes began to focus and she seemed to recognize discrete > objects. In her case (and all babies?) pointing started with reaching, a > reach that intrinsically exceeds it's grasp? Perhaps *this* is what > identifies humans and/or sentience... a reach that exceeds the grasp? > > I've had dogs which understand (quite clearly) the gesture of throwing. > In this case, pretending to *throw* something would give he hint to look or > even *run* in the direction where my (pointing) appendage ended up > pointing. I had an Irish Setter who also understood (halfway) that a > thrown object had a shadow (often) and instead of trying to track the > object, would chase the shadow. He was as fast and he obsessive. When > the sun was low, his chase would trace a long arc, ending with the (tennis > ball usually) bouncing off of his snout which he would then snatch from the > air or after another short chase. I think this might be a rederivation > of Fermat's Principle of Least Time in Optics, by Irish Setter? Oh yeh, he > also only had three legs. > > My current dog (a strange mix of chocolate lab and doberman or viszla?) > has a total jones for a laser pointer which has grown to include flashlight > beams. Walking at night with her is totally strange, you have to be > careful where you point the flashlight because she is *always* aware of > where the beam is and will try to pounce on it as she does laser pointers > (just like a cat?!). Pointing the flashlight in the path for your guests > on the way to their car leads to them tripping over a very eager and > focused dog instead. She even seems to correlate the pointing with the > (first it was my Infrared Thermometer, then a conventional laser pointer, > then accidentally the flashlight) pointing device. A conventional > (telescoping or not) "pointer" means nothing to her except that I might > either throw it for her to chase or *whack* her. Maybe if I affixed a > laser pointer to it? > > *Science:* > I think you (again Glen) are saying that the core of science is the > Scientific Method? > > Perhaps. But "scientific method" is a hoity-toity word intended (or > accidentally) used to intimidate people. > > Nope... it is a phrase intended (coined, adopted, grown?) to mean one > thing very precisely. The Wikipedia entry might broaden it a bit (note > that the W entry is in dispute at the moment), but the central spirit of > this concept remains. The OED's description is naturally about it's > etymology and historical use, but again, still remains true to the central > concept: > > "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the > 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and > experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses." OED > > > It might get used for what you say (intimidation and dismissal?), but > that is not what it was coined for nor is that what it means (ok... argue > that what it is used for is what it means... but I'm not sure when that > isn't a specious and semicurcular argument?). But we've been discussing > what fairly well defined words mean already, so I grant you that there can > be an issue among common discourse. > > And while many people may *be* intimidated by it's use, I think it is > still a very legitimate (motivated as well as useful) way to classify a > very specific approach to obtaining and building knowledge. I have great > sympathy for other approaches (intuitive in particular), and don't dismiss > them lightly if or when I do. I understand that there is a large body of > people who might use "the Scientific Method" in roughly the same way as > others might use "The One True Path" or "The Holy Gospel" or "The Chosen > People", to intimidate and dismiss. > > What I think we are both talking about is: 1) Taking a(n educated?) guess > that involves causal relations; 2) Formulating a way to test this guess by > *doing something*; 3) Doing something; 4) Observing the results; 5) > Recording the results; 6) repeat any/all of 1,2,3,4,5 until 5 matches 1 > (excluding the obvious cheat of simply adjusting 5 to match 1, also > practiced for the purpose of gaining future funding but generally frowned > upon) > > > There really is no Grand > Unified Scientific Method. There are methodS, emphasis on the S. There > are people who log what they do and people who don't. A scientist is a > person who logs what they do in such a way that others can repeat what > they've done. > > So, a) you have to do stuff, not just think. And b) you have to do it > in such a way so that others can also do it. > > Hypothesis generation and testing combined with repeatability (by others) > is all I mean by "the Scientific Method". I think you do too? And yes, > within that high level description, there are a multitude of methodS for > every aspect. The engineering approaches used to set up and execute > experiments, different styles of diagramming and of notating data as it is > acquired. And even different branches of mathematics and schools of > thought on statistics/evidence/error (e.g. frequentist, bayesian, > fuzziest)... etc. > > Blatheringly, > - Steve > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
