Re: Animals think like autistic humans
On 04 Jan 2015, at 01:51, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/3/2015 9:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Jan 2015, at 06:28, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
wrote:
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
] On Behalf Of Kim Jones
Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 8:55 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Animals think like autistic humans
On 1 Jan 2015, at 2:52 pm, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 4:30 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Animals think like autistic humans
On 12/31/2014 4:00 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
You seem to be saying that we can do nothing new about thinking.
No, not that at all. I am saying that first we need to understand
what thinking really is and move beyond our primitive
anthropocentric views that have come to us from our past. We have
a long heritage of thinking about what thinking is, so lots of
material to draw from.
The more humbly we come to understand that our self-aware inner
dialogue is the mind’s (simplified and summarized) narration of a
deeper and much vaster non verbalized intelligence which is that
which is doing the individuals *thinking*
OK, but then you can't stop the descend and you will need to say
that the thinking is done by the arithmetical realizations, but
that is 3p descriptible (even if infinite) so something has gone
wrong (we get trapped in a cinfusion between the 3p, []p, and the
1p, []p p).
What's wrong with being 3p describable (aside from mystic prejudices)?
It is usually accepted by philosophers of mind, theologian, poet, and
most people capable of some aount of introspection, that experiences,
consciousness, qualia, pain, etc. are not 3p describable. It is a
chance for mechanism, as most arithmetical truth a machine can be
confronted to by introspection are not 3p describable. For example the
classical knower, []p p, if it can be defined for each
arithmetical proposition p, cannot be defined by a predicate in
arithmetic knowable('p'), (for reason similar that True('p') cannot be
defined). This has been shown by Scott and Montague. Despite being not
definable by a machine, a machine can still reason on it and find that
it obeys a precise mathematics (with the propositional part obeying
the modal logic S4Grz).
Bruno
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Animals think like autistic humans
On 03 Jan 2015, at 06:28, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of Kim Jones Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 8:55 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Animals think like autistic humans On 1 Jan 2015, at 2:52 pm, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 4:30 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Animals think like autistic humans On 12/31/2014 4:00 PM, Kim Jones wrote: You seem to be saying that we can do nothing new about thinking. No, not that at all. I am saying that first we need to understand what thinking really is and move beyond our primitive anthropocentric views that have come to us from our past. We have a long heritage of thinking about what thinking is, so lots of material to draw from. The more humbly we come to understand that our self-aware inner dialogue is the mind’s (simplified and summarized) narration of a deeper and much vaster non verbalized intelligence which is that which is doing the individuals *thinking* OK, but then you can't stop the descend and you will need to say that the thinking is done by the arithmetical realizations, but that is 3p descriptible (even if infinite) so something has gone wrong (we get trapped in a cinfusion between the 3p, []p, and the 1p, []p p). I believe it is better to get past the misconception that the inner voice we casually *sense* as being ourselves is the actual repository our being. The inner voice use words, and so miss the []p p. The conscious person lives at the intersection of truth (sense, semantaic, religion, infinite, p) and belief (science, syntax,representation, []p). The 1-I is the person; it is an abstract well definite, despite unnameable. It is not the set of unconscious brain happenings, even if that person result in part o those brain happenings. Well, I suppose you can adopt this attitude to it. The mind is infinitely mysterious and like the ocean, we will never get to the bottom of it. It all happens inside this black box. With every year it is becoming less and less of a black box though! Are you saying that neuroscience will never figure out how the mind works in the brain? I disagree, it is really hard to try to keep up with the pace of what is going on in brain/mind science; at every orthogonal level; from ever finer grained knowledge, to the incredible advances in available experimental tools. Betting on levels, sometimes eliminating the person, and presented often with a brain/mind identity thesis not compatible with mechanism. I don't think we can understand the psyche, soul, mind without understanding the need to backtrack in theology to Plato. Or, alternatively, you could say that the mind is something that is easy to understand when viewed as a pattern-reading and a pattern- generating system. Why must you pose this as an unavoidable alternative; as being an either or proposition. That is a Manichean way of viewing things – IMO. Seeing the mind a s a pattern recognition; patter generating machine is useful *at times* but just because some intellectual tool is useful for some tasks does not mean that it must therefore become the only metric and means by which we view the mind. To state it in those either/or terms is highly limiting. When you need a hammer, by all means use a hammer, but just because a hammer is the best tool for some jobs does not mean a hammer makes the best toothpick! No doubt about this. Now we can easily see something of benefit: that we are excellent at the former but particularly weak at the latter. Here is where we can improve our thinking without bothering about the unconscious mind and other dirty sewers that we at other times love to thresh around in philosophically. I find it highly curious how you describe the unconscious mind as being a dirty sewer – speak for yourself Kim.. where you see a sewer I see endless unfolding wonder… an inner kaleidoscope beckoning and waiting discovery. You se something I should explain oneday: the creativity of the universal machine, and the productivity of its complement, and of truth. (Assuming computationalism, of course). That has been discovered by Emil Post, and that is what makes computationalism quite plausible. But it is no part of the person itself, it makes only richer his/her reality. It is the wonder of the unknown, but you eliminate yourself if you identify yourself to any 3p conception of that unknown, which is the reductionist trap of the (weak)-materialists. From below, I guess I should say two words about the theoretical computer scientist notion of creative
Re: Animals think like autistic humans
On 1/3/2015 9:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Jan 2015, at 06:28, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: *From:*everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com]*On Behalf Of*Kim Jones *Sent:*Wednesday, December 31, 2014 8:55 PM *To:*everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:*Re: Animals think like autistic humans On 1 Jan 2015, at 2:52 pm, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: *From:*everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com]*On Behalf Of*meekerdb *Sent:*Wednesday, December 31, 2014 4:30 PM *To:*everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:*Re: Animals think like autistic humans On 12/31/2014 4:00 PM, Kim Jones wrote: You seem to be saying that we can do nothing new about thinking. No, not that at all. I am saying that first we need to understand what thinking really is and move beyond our primitive anthropocentric views that have come to us from our past. We have a long heritage of thinking about what thinking is, so lots of material to draw from. The more humbly we come to understand that our self-aware inner dialogue is the mind’s (simplified and summarized) narration of a deeper and much vaster non verbalized intelligence which is that which is doing the individuals **thinking** OK, but then you can't stop the descend and you will need to say that the thinking is done by the arithmetical realizations, but that is 3p descriptible (even if infinite) so something has gone wrong (we get trapped in a cinfusion between the 3p, []p, and the 1p, []p p). What's wrong with being 3p describable (aside from mystic prejudices)? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: Animals think like autistic humans
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Kim Jones Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 8:55 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Animals think like autistic humans On 1 Jan 2015, at 2:52 pm, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: From: mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com everything-list@googlegroups.com [ mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 4:30 PM To: mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Animals think like autistic humans On 12/31/2014 4:00 PM, Kim Jones wrote: Thinking, however, is a highly evolved skill of many parts involving values and beliefs and motivations and agendas and theories and risk-taking. Lifting a cup to your lips to swallow a liquid requires no thinking. The skill is embedded since infancy, so it is with savants. But there's not a sharp distinction. Many skills must be developed thoughtfully and then they can become automatic. Riding a bicycle is the paradigmatic case, but it probably applies to drinking from cup too. Taking what Brent said a step further; there is no clear sharp line for thinking itself! The mind/brain is far more extended than the self-aware voice boxes we all inhabit… looking out from within. Lifting the cup to drink may not require conscious thought, after it has been learned, but watch an infant try to do it their first times and witness a conscious struggle as the wee little young forebrain neural synaptic dynamic circuitry tries to coordinate that human mastered trick of life. You are describing skill-acquisition. And you are describing how you describe it. A lot of life is about skill acquisition. But the point, which may have slipped by you, is that, even after a skill has been acquired and the conscious executive self-aware narrator is no longer – CONSCIOUSLY – engaged in the often complex, sequenced and choreographed sets of inter-acting behaviors and actions that comprise this acquired skill, that the brain mind is still very actively performing algorithmically complex and sequenced series of processing steps in order to accomplish the end goal. ALL of this *thinking* is still happening – each and every time you raise that cup to your lips to take a sip. You could just as well point to someone learning to play scales in time to a metronome. This requires careful monitoring - by thinking - of perception, otherwise there is risk that the wrong algorithm or faulty algorithms will get embedded or learnt. Athletes always learn their complex and otherwise dangerous routines with someone continually guiding their perception. Some children do fail to learn how to drink from a cup correctly. You will always come to a conclusion based on your perception, not your thinking, so perception without thinking can be and is dangerous. If you play your scales continually the wrong way, you become an expert at playing your scales wrong, but that is the fault of perception which is kind of your inflated self-belief. Perception says what something is. Thinking says what something can or could be. And you *are providing your definitions* for what you believe perception and thinking are. That’s okay, but it is also open to question and debate. Perception is very different from species to species. In most species perception is primarily a sensorial driven process reflected into simple fight flight decisional networks, but in our species with our highly developed self-awareness and introspective inner life perception is molded by our intellectual expectations to a greater degree than most people realize. Think of how our *hearing* exquisitely cancels out noise we are not interested about (such as the sound of a random passing car on the road outside). We don’t actually *hear* a lot of the impinging sound waves that setup vibrations in our cochlear glands; just as we do not actually *see* a lot of what excites the rods cones in our retinas. In humans to a much greater degree than other species the mental intellectual frame of reference colors and edits our perception. Often to the extent that we do not *hear* or *see* what is plainly audible or clearly there in plain sight. There are some rather famous experiments that demonstrate this uncanny “ability” of human test subjects to fail to see the obvious, because they are busy looking for something else. So does perception really “say what something is” after all? Or is it more accurate to define perception as being the minds reified model of what the subjective mind believes to be important for its rendition of reality. What is more this exquisite balancing act of mental censorship is itself dynamically changing according to how the mind judges in any
Re: Animals think like autistic humans
On 12/31/2014 8:55 PM, Kim Jones wrote: You are describing skill-acquisition. You could just as well point to someone learning to play scales in time to a metronome. This requires careful monitoring - by thinking - of perception, otherwise there is risk that the wrong algorithm or faulty algorithms will get embedded or learnt. Athletes always learn their complex and otherwise dangerous routines with someone continually guiding their perception. Really? That's not how I learned motorcycle racing. It was just like learning to ride a bicycle - if you fall down you're not doing it right. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Fwd: Animals think like autistic humans
Forwarded Message http://discovermagazine.com/2005/may/what-do-animals-think -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Animals think like autistic humans
I've been fascinated by people with savant-like abilities, especially in the visual/spatial area (e.g. http://www.stephenwiltshire.co.uk/ ). I wonder if when human's evolved language or other abstract reasoning abilities, they might have lost what was formerly an innate ability in all people (and still present in many animals). Jason On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 12:58 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Forwarded Message http://discovermagazine.com/2005/may/what-do-animals-think -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Animals think like autistic humans
Thanks for that Brent. Temple Grandin is one of my heroes. On 1 January 2015 at 09:27, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: I've been fascinated by people with savant-like abilities, especially in the visual/spatial area (e.g. http://www.stephenwiltshire.co.uk/ ). I wonder if when human's evolved language or other abstract reasoning abilities, they might have lost what was formerly an innate ability in all people (and still present in many animals). Jason On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 12:58 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Forwarded Message http://discovermagazine.com/2005/may/what-do-animals-think -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Animals think like autistic humans
It's not about thinking. It's about perception. Savants and animals have a perception of reality that others may have lost, yes. As always, you need to be clear about what is perception (pattern recognition) and what is thinking (designing some form of action in the future). All living things have perception of some kind, but it may need a neo-cortex for thinking. The ability of someone to listen to a highly complex and lengthy piece of music, then to remember it note-perfect by playing it on the piano is a skill of perception and memory; no thinking involved whatsoever. The ability of someone to say, after a moment's reflection which day of the week it was on January 24, 1167 is not an act of thinking but an act of recognition. What the mind does naturally is to recognise. That is what a brain is for. Savants and animals are fabulously good at recognition, yes. Thinking, however, is a highly evolved skill of many parts involving values and beliefs and motivations and agendas and theories and risk-taking. Lifting a cup to your lips to swallow a liquid requires no thinking. The skill is embedded since infancy, so it is with savants. They 'see' (ie perceive) things you and I do not (clearly, some form of huge and efficient lookup table) but they are not necessarily better thinkers than you and me. The ability to do something instantaneously that would normally require heaps of computation is evidence of hugely efficient pattern recognition. I would say this is limbic brain stuff, the neo-cortex may have sat down on certain elements of our ancient brain and all but snuffed them out. Kim On 1 Jan 2015, at 5:58 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Forwarded Message http://discovermagazine.com/2005/may/what-do-animals-think -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Animals think like autistic humans
On 12/31/2014 4:00 PM, Kim Jones wrote: Thinking, however, is a highly evolved skill of many parts involving values and beliefs and motivations and agendas and theories and risk-taking. Lifting a cup to your lips to swallow a liquid requires no thinking. The skill is embedded since infancy, so it is with savants. But there's not a sharp distinction. Many skills must be developed thoughtfully and then they can become automatic. Riding a bicycle is the paradigmatic case, but it probably applies to drinking from cup too. Brent The nipple is the only truly intuitive interface. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Animals think like autistic humans
On 1 Jan 2015, at 11:30 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/31/2014 4:00 PM, Kim Jones wrote: Thinking, however, is a highly evolved skill of many parts involving values and beliefs and motivations and agendas and theories and risk-taking. Lifting a cup to your lips to swallow a liquid requires no thinking. The skill is embedded since infancy, so it is with savants. But there's not a sharp distinction. Does there have to be? Must Nature make sharp distinctions to please Man? Perception is data-gathering, thinking is data-processing. There. Howzat? Seems pretty razor-sharp to me Many skills must be developed thoughtfully and then they can become automatic. Yes. A skill is learnt consciously over time to create the algorithm which is like feeling your way into it. But the skill is then increasingly applied automatically, routinely, instinctively, reflexively - it's downshifted in terms of the neuronal loading required to activate the pattern. There is - if you prefer 'first stage' thinking and 'second stage' thinking. The difference between recognising something and deciding what to do about it if we want to boil it down. Riding a bicycle is the paradigmatic case, but it probably applies to drinking from cup too. Absolutely. No one ever learnt to ride a bike with an instruction manual in one hand. You get on the bike you fall off the bike. You get on the bike you fall off the bike. You get on the bike you fall off the bike. You get on the bike you fall off the bike. You get on the bike you stay on the bike, you etc... I think we are here right up against (once again, sigh) intelligence and competency. The better you are at a skill, the more competent you are (at that skill, possibly in other ways if there is transferability of that skill). You no longer need to think about it. Intelligence (speed of pattern recognition) not necessary or less necessary. K Brent The nipple is the only truly intuitive interface. Also the very first. All other subsequent interfaces in life are therefore required to exhibit nipple-like intuitiveness in their design. Basically the goal of life is to be on the tit in some sense. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Animals think like autistic humans
On 12/31/2014 5:52 PM, Kim Jones wrote: On 1 Jan 2015, at 11:30 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/31/2014 4:00 PM, Kim Jones wrote: Thinking, however, is a highly evolved skill of many parts involving values and beliefs and motivations and agendas and theories and risk-taking. Lifting a cup to your lips to swallow a liquid requires no thinking. The skill is embedded since infancy, so it is with savants. But there's not a sharp distinction. Does there have to be? Must Nature make sharp distinctions to please Man? Perception is data-gathering, thinking is data-processing. There. Howzat? Seems pretty razor-sharp to me Seems like identifying black and white and ignoring grey. Is riding a bicycle data-gathering/perception or is it data-processing/intelligence? I'd say it's both. Many skills must be developed thoughtfully and then they can become automatic. Yes. A skill is learnt consciously over time to create the algorithm which is like feeling your way into it. But the skill is then increasingly applied automatically, routinely, instinctively, reflexively - it's downshifted in terms of the neuronal loading required to activate the pattern. There is - if you prefer 'first stage' thinking and 'second stage' thinking. The difference between recognising something and deciding what to do about it if we want to boil it down. That boils it down too far. What to do about something can be automatic too, and in many cases it needs to be. Sports are a good example. Most of what you do has to be automatic. Riding a bicycle is the paradigmatic case, but it probably applies to drinking from cup too. Absolutely. No one ever learnt to ride a bike with an instruction manual in one hand. You get on the bike you fall off the bike. You get on the bike you fall off the bike. You get on the bike you fall off the bike. You get on the bike you fall off the bike. You get on the bike you stay on the bike, you etc... I think we are here right up against (once again, sigh) intelligence and competency. The better you are at a skill, the more competent you are (at that skill, possibly in other ways if there is transferability of that skill). You no longer need to think about it. Intelligence (speed of pattern recognition) not necessary or less necessary. ?? Now you identify intelligence with recognition - while above you seemed to contrast perception with thinking. What's that last sentence supposed to be? Brent K Brent The nipple is the only truly intuitive interface. Also the very first. All other subsequent interfaces in life are therefore required to exhibit nipple-like intuitiveness in their design. Basically the goal of life is to be on the tit in some sense. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Animals think like autistic humans
On 1 Jan 2015, at 1:13 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/31/2014 5:52 PM, Kim Jones wrote: On 1 Jan 2015, at 11:30 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/31/2014 4:00 PM, Kim Jones wrote: Thinking, however, is a highly evolved skill of many parts involving values and beliefs and motivations and agendas and theories and risk-taking. Lifting a cup to your lips to swallow a liquid requires no thinking. The skill is embedded since infancy, so it is with savants. But there's not a sharp distinction. Does there have to be? Must Nature make sharp distinctions to please Man? Perception is data-gathering, thinking is data-processing. There. Howzat? Seems pretty razor-sharp to me Seems like identifying black and white and ignoring grey. The recognition of anything is what I am talking about. Grey needs to be recognised to exist and is recognised. Unless something about your brain makes you blind to grey - you will recognise it. There was a first time this happened, in fact. That moment created the pattern your mind now 'sees' whenever you now confront the appropriate signalling wavelength Is riding a bicycle data-gathering/perception or is it data-processing/intelligence? I'd say it's both. It is both but at different stages. Once you can ride your bike you do it more or less with the ease of someone walking. That is surely the goal of bike-riding; to downshift the mental energy required to do it but that is the goal of all skill learning. Acquiring the skill is what we are talking about, laying down the tram tracks that we will use later on when we come back to it. The mind is a memory surface that we sculpt like a needle scouring out a groove in a vinyl record. Initial experiences determine subsequent ones. Experience is not thinking. Thinking is the exploration of experience for a purpose. It involves, but should by no means limited to, or by, perception. Sadly this is rarely the case as decisions have to be made and the outcome of all decisions is always determined by what we don't know. A big part of excellent thinking is about making this distinction sharp between recognition as one thing and thinking as another, if only to see how far we can go with simple recognition, before we have to join up a few dots to create (ie design) instructions for action as opposed to merely having our presets triggered and reacting with standard thinking. Many skills must be developed thoughtfully and then they can become automatic. Yes. A skill is learnt consciously over time to create the algorithm which is like feeling your way into it. But the skill is then increasingly applied automatically, routinely, instinctively, reflexively - it's downshifted in terms of the neuronal loading required to activate the pattern. There is - if you prefer 'first stage' thinking and 'second stage' thinking. The difference between recognising something and deciding what to do about it if we want to boil it down. That boils it down too far. What to do about something can be automatic too, and in many cases it needs to be. Sports are a good example. Most of what you do has to be automatic. But you aren't born with this skill, are you? You have to learn it so, as usual, where you are (sleek and easy) skill-deficient, you employ your (try-hard) intelligence to 'test yourself' and evaluate your performance over time. Riding a bicycle is the paradigmatic case, but it probably applies to drinking from cup too. Absolutely. No one ever learnt to ride a bike with an instruction manual in one hand. You get on the bike you fall off the bike. You get on the bike you fall off the bike. You get on the bike you fall off the bike. You get on the bike you fall off the bike. You get on the bike you stay on the bike, you etc... I think we are here right up against (once again, sigh) intelligence and competency. The better you are at a skill, the more competent you are (at that skill, possibly in other ways if there is transferability of that skill). You no longer need to think about it. Intelligence (speed of pattern recognition) not necessary or less necessary. ?? Now you identify intelligence with recognition - while above you seemed to contrast perception with thinking. What's that last sentence supposed to be? Intelligence is speed of pattern recognition meaning the person is more likely to arrive at the end of their thinking based only on available information only unless they use their thinking or willpower (another word to characterise it) to imagine scenarios and consider a range of choices and outcomes and universes in which they might subsequently find themselves based on what they do from here. That's like recognising the future if you will, or projecting the mind using the imagination into possible alternative continuations. The goal of thinking
Re: Animals think like autistic humans
On 12/31/2014 6:52 PM, Kim Jones wrote: On 1 Jan 2015, at 1:13 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/31/2014 5:52 PM, Kim Jones wrote: On 1 Jan 2015, at 11:30 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/31/2014 4:00 PM, Kim Jones wrote: Thinking, however, is a highly evolved skill of many parts involving values and beliefs and motivations and agendas and theories and risk-taking. Lifting a cup to your lips to swallow a liquid requires no thinking. The skill is embedded since infancy, so it is with savants. But there's not a sharp distinction. Does there have to be? Must Nature make sharp distinctions to please Man? Perception is data-gathering, thinking is data-processing. There. Howzat? Seems pretty razor-sharp to me Seems like identifying black and white and ignoring grey. The recognition of anything is what I am talking about. Grey needs to be recognised to exist and is recognised. Unless something about your brain makes you blind to grey - you will recognise it. There was a first time this happened, in fact. That moment created the pattern your mind now 'sees' whenever you now confront the appropriate signalling wavelength Is riding a bicycle data-gathering/perception or is it data-processing/intelligence? I'd say it's both. It is both but at different stages. Once you can ride your bike you do it more or less with the ease of someone walking. That is surely the goal of bike-riding; to downshift the mental energy required to do it but that is the goal of all skill learning. Acquiring the skill is what we are talking about, laying down the tram tracks that we will use later on when we come back to it. The mind is a memory surface that we sculpt like a needle scouring out a groove in a vinyl record. Initial experiences determine subsequent ones. Experience is not thinking. Thinking is the exploration of experience for a purpose. It involves, but should by no means limited to, or by, perception. Sadly this is rarely the case as decisions have to be made and the outcome of all decisions is always determined by what we don't know. A big part of excellent thinking is about making this distinction sharp between recognition as one thing and thinking as another, if only to see how far we can go with simple recognition, before we have to join up a few dots to create (ie design) instructions for action as opposed to merely having our presets triggered and reacting with standard thinking. Many skills must be developed thoughtfully and then they can become automatic. Yes. A skill is learnt consciously over time to create the algorithm which is like feeling your way into it. But the skill is then increasingly applied automatically, routinely, instinctively, reflexively - it's downshifted in terms of the neuronal loading required to activate the pattern. There is - if you prefer 'first stage' thinking and 'second stage' thinking. The difference between recognising something and deciding what to do about it if we want to boil it down. That boils it down too far. What to do about something can be automatic too, and in many cases it needs to be. Sports are a good example. Most of what you do has to be automatic. But you aren't born with this skill, are you? You have to learn it so, as usual, where you are (sleek and easy) skill-deficient, you employ your (try-hard) intelligence to 'test yourself' and evaluate your performance over time. Riding a bicycle is the paradigmatic case, but it probably applies to drinking from cup too. Absolutely. No one ever learnt to ride a bike with an instruction manual in one hand. You get on the bike you fall off the bike. You get on the bike you fall off the bike. You get on the bike you fall off the bike. You get on the bike you fall off the bike. You get on the bike you stay on the bike, you etc... I think we are here right up against (once again, sigh) intelligence and competency. The better you are at a skill, the more competent you are (at that skill, possibly in other ways if there is transferability of that skill). You no longer need to think about it. Intelligence (speed of pattern recognition) not necessary or less necessary. ?? Now you identify intelligence with recognition - while above you seemed to contrast perception with thinking. What's that last sentence supposed to be? Intelligence is speed of pattern recognition meaning the person is more likely to arrive at the end of their thinking based only on available information only unless they use their thinking or willpower (another word to characterise it) to imagine scenarios and consider a range of choices and outcomes and universes in which they might subsequently find themselves based on what they do from here. So intelligence is bad thinking because it recognizes a pattern quickly and doesn't think about...what?
RE: Animals think like autistic humans
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 4:30 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Animals think like autistic humans
On 12/31/2014 4:00 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
Thinking, however, is a highly evolved skill of many parts involving values and
beliefs and motivations and agendas and theories and risk-taking. Lifting a cup
to your lips to swallow a liquid requires no thinking. The skill is embedded
since infancy, so it is with savants.
But there's not a sharp distinction. Many skills must be developed
thoughtfully and then they can become automatic. Riding a bicycle is the
paradigmatic case, but it probably applies to drinking from cup too.
Taking what Brent said a step further; there is no clear sharp line for
thinking itself! The mind/brain is far more extended than the self-aware voice
boxes we all inhabit… looking out from within. Lifting the cup to drink may not
require conscious thought, after it has been learned, but watch an infant try
to do it their first times and witness a conscious struggle as the wee little
young forebrain neural synaptic dynamic circuitry tries to coordinate that
human mastered trick of life.
When we speak of “thinking” it is incumbent to remain clear that the mind is
far greater than the conscious tip we are conscious about. Our self-aware
conscious selves, in many cases, can be shown to only become aware of events
and decisions, measurably lagging behind preceding bursts of neural activity
lighting up in glorious cascades of network activity within the mind/brain. How
much of our thinking makes it to the level of the executive self-narrating
forebrain centered self awareness; versus how much of life’s thinking and
executive decisions, including complex algorithmic tasks – such as drinking
from a cup – are instead performed without bothering the self-aware {sub-part}
of the larger mind/brain/organism.
-Chris
Brent
The nipple is the only truly intuitive interface.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Animals think like autistic humans
On 1 Jan 2015, at 2:52 pm, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 4:30 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Animals think like autistic humans
On 12/31/2014 4:00 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
Thinking, however, is a highly evolved skill of many parts involving values
and beliefs and motivations and agendas and theories and risk-taking. Lifting
a cup to your lips to swallow a liquid requires no thinking. The skill is
embedded since infancy, so it is with savants.
But there's not a sharp distinction. Many skills must be developed
thoughtfully and then they can become automatic. Riding a bicycle is the
paradigmatic case, but it probably applies to drinking from cup too.
Taking what Brent said a step further; there is no clear sharp line for
thinking itself! The mind/brain is far more extended than the self-aware
voice boxes we all inhabit… looking out from within. Lifting the cup to drink
may not require conscious thought, after it has been learned, but watch an
infant try to do it their first times and witness a conscious struggle as the
wee little young forebrain neural synaptic dynamic circuitry tries to
coordinate that human mastered trick of life.
You are describing skill-acquisition. You could just as well point to someone
learning to play scales in time to a metronome. This requires careful
monitoring - by thinking - of perception, otherwise there is risk that the
wrong algorithm or faulty algorithms will get embedded or learnt. Athletes
always learn their complex and otherwise dangerous routines with someone
continually guiding their perception. Some children do fail to learn how to
drink from a cup correctly. You will always come to a conclusion based on your
perception, not your thinking, so perception without thinking can be and is
dangerous. If you play your scales continually the wrong way, you become an
expert at playing your scales wrong, but that is the fault of perception which
is kind of your inflated self-belief. Perception says what something is.
Thinking says what something can or could be.
When we speak of “thinking” it is incumbent to remain clear that the mind is
far greater than the conscious tip we are conscious about. Our self-aware
conscious selves, in many cases, can be shown to only become aware of events
and decisions, measurably lagging behind preceding bursts of neural activity
lighting up in glorious cascades of network activity within the mind/brain.
How much of our thinking makes it to the level of the executive
self-narrating forebrain centered self awareness; versus how much of life’s
thinking and executive decisions, including complex algorithmic tasks – such
as drinking from a cup – are instead performed without bothering the
self-aware {sub-part} of the larger mind/brain/organism.
-Chris
You seem to be saying that we can do nothing new about thinking. Well, I
suppose you can adopt this attitude to it. The mind is infinitely mysterious
and like the ocean, we will never get to the bottom of it. It all happens
inside this black box.
Or, alternatively, you could say that the mind is something that is easy to
understand when viewed as a pattern-reading and a pattern-generating system.
Now we can easily see something of benefit: that we are excellent at the former
but particularly weak at the latter. Here is where we can improve our thinking
without bothering about the unconscious mind and other dirty sewers that we at
other times love to thresh around in philosophically.
Thinking is the exploration of experience for a purpose. OK, there are things
tugging at us that we cannot know about or understand. We are free to define
the purpose of thinking but to get better at it we need to be better explorers
of experience. You can argue about what's on the map or what the map means, but
someone has to make the map for there to be something to argue about. Thinking
is the channelling or the processing of perceptions in some way. The result is
a map that is supposed to give insight into possibilities for action.
Creativity needs to be considered as part of thinking as well to avoid the
limitation of always seeing everything via the routine or the standard or
existing patterns of recognition. Generative thinking: the least developed and
the least understood part of our minds. Perception says what is (recognition).
Thinking allows the PATTERNING OF perception to form concepts and ideas that
contain already compressed versions of the initial perceptions.
K
Brent
The nipple is the only truly intuitive interface.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
