Dear Stephen: I read your piece on Neural Plasticity, at https://www.academia.edu/3236559/Pragmatism_Neural_Plasticity_and_Mind-Body_Unity and it makes a lot of sense to me. I suspect Tom's questions will dissolve upon reading it, too.
Ben N. *Ben Novak* 5129 Taylor Drive, Ave Maria, FL 34142 Telephone: (814) 808-5702 *"All art is mortal, **not merely the individual artifacts, but the arts themselves.* *One day the last portrait of Rembrandt* *and the last bar of Mozart will have ceased to be—**though possibly a colored canvas and a sheet of notes may remain—**because the last eye and the last ear accessible to their message **will have gone." *Oswald Spengler On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Thomas903 <ozzie...@gmail.com> wrote: > Stephen J., List ~ > > A - "The notion of body-as-tool is a very important one because it sheds > light on so many things." > > B- “If Your Only Tool Is a Hammer Then Every Problem Looks Like a Nail” > > > If my body is a tool (hands, feet, eyes, etc.), then how can my ONLY tool > be a hammer or any other external object? After saying (A) the body is a > tool, then statement (B) is wrong on its face. > > Statement (B) suggests that people are limited-function robots. > > If my only (external) tool is a hammer and I wish to attach two boards > together, I can walk to my neighbor's house (feet and legs) and ask him > (voice) to glue or screw them together, or use various wood-wood bonds such > as mortise-and-tenon. Why must I stay at home and insist on using my only > tool to bond the boards with nails? > > If my house is on fire, I could use my body (hands, arms, feet, etc.) as > tools to fight the fire, or a hose as a tool to convey water to the site, > or social arrangements such as a telephone call to the fire department. > > There's more: "An ape can never use language to communicate with humans." > Humans and apes have already communicated. If a man or woman learns the > sounds made by an ape under various circumstances, then the ape can > communicate with a human using its own language. The ape doesn't need to do > anything unusual. Dolphins can communicate via sound/language with humans. > Some birds use the language of birds of another species to trick them. > Babies and pets use non-language sounds to communicate with adult humans. > > "Why can’t cats be taught to use a fork and knife"? I have never heard > of a cat using silverware to eat, but I have seen a crow use a chop stick > to pick up its food. (One stick, not two.) Monkeys sometimes use sticks, > too, to pick up food (esp. ants). But even if cats were disposed to use > silverware, how would you know? The silverware have to be scaled for the > size and shape of the cat's paws, and shaped appropriately for the food the > cat is eating. A human wouldn't use silverware if each utensil were 20' > long and weighed 200 lbs, and people don't use a fork to eat soup or potato > chips. > > > I don't really need a response to any of these questions, because they > were only posed to reveal the sloppy thinking, logical gaps and > inconsistencies in your posting. At the very least, individual statements > (definitions, axioms, predictions) should be able to stand up to scrutiny, > before asserting those statements can all be combined into a coherent > theory. > > > Regards, > Tom Wyrick > > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 4:00 AM, Stephen Jarosek <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> > wrote: > >> List, >> >> Allow me to take advantage of this lull in postings to elaborate on the >> relationship between pragmatism and the mind-body unity. The notion of >> body-as-tool is a very important one because it sheds light on so many >> things, from sex differences in most species to gender roles in culture, to >> why cats don’t boogie, to why dogs don’t wear suits. >> >> Or, why can’t dogs ever be taught to drive? Because their mind-bodies do >> not predispose them to caring about all the contexts that must come >> together to make driving a “thing”. Why can’t cats be taught to use a fork >> and knife instead of gulping down their cat-food from a bowl? Because their >> mind-bodies provide no basis upon which they should define table manners as >> relevant. But can’t you just indoctrinate the most stubborn of critters by >> repetition, or shouting instructions at them more often and more loudly? >> No, because you cannot cross pragmatism’s mind-body barrier. If something >> cannot matter to an entity, then no manner of shouting at it is going to >> change their minds. To a cat with four paws and no vocal chords with which >> to voice approval or dissent, a fork and knife will bear no relationship to >> food, and it never can. Now you might be able to make table-manners matter >> by the force of will and the threat of punishment, but said “manners” will >> never matter in the same way that it matters to humans, the meaning is >> completely different. >> >> None of this has anything to do with “intelligence” and everything to do >> with motivation (firstness?) and bodily predispositions and how an entity >> defines the things that matter. It’s a fundamentally simple idea that is >> often expressed along the following lines (variously misattributed to >> everyone, from Mark Twain to Abraham Maslow): >> “If Your Only Tool Is a Hammer Then Every Problem Looks Like a Nail” >> “A man whose only tool is a hammer will perceive the world in terms of >> nails” >> “A critter whose only tool is four paws, fur and whiskers will perceive >> the world in terms of cat-food.” >> (ahem… that last one was me) >> >> Developing upon this theme: >> A human whose only tool is a woman’s body will perceive the world >> principally in terms of the cultural known; >> A human whose only tool is a man’s body will perceive the world >> principally in terms of the interface between the cultural known and the >> unknown. >> (where the cultural known relates to the habits of established authority, >> traditions, values, etc, and the cultural unknown relates to risk, >> competition, resource management, etc) >> >> Thomas Sebeok was basically on track with his thesis that an ape can >> never use language to communicate with humans: >> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/02/us/thomas-sebeok-81-debunk >> er-of-ape-human-speech-theory.html >> >> Now whether or not Sebeok’s thesis is 100% accurate, before an ape can be >> taught to speak, it has to have the MOTIVATION to speak. And that can only >> come about by somehow addressing the ape’s mind-body predispositions, and >> the environment with which it interfaces, to draw those predispositions >> into actuality. >> >> Now perhaps I am making leaps in reasoning that need to be laid out. The >> notion of Self as Sign, for example, might be better understood if we >> factored in the DNA entanglement that unifies all the cells constituting a >> mind-body (holon), into a single unity. Without at least an outline >> alluding to the physics of this unity (the binding problem), our way >> forward will remain ambiguous. Either way, my position is that the notion >> of body as tool is fundamental to understanding pragmatism (and >> consciousness). And this is not inconsistent with the notion of mind-body, >> or holon, as Sign. A more detailed explanation of my line of reasoning can >> be found in the Biosemiotics journal (Springer), or at: >> https://www.academia.edu/3236559/Pragmatism_Neural_Plasticit >> y_and_Mind-Body_Unity >> My paper on DNA entanglement is scheduled to be published in a couple of >> months time in another journal – an outline of the original relevant >> concepts exists: >> https://www.academia.edu/29626663/DNA_ENTANGLEMENT_THE_EVIDENCE_MOUNTS >> >> sj >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L >> but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the >> BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce >> -l/peirce-l.htm . >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
