Understandingness (was Re: Prediction (was Learning))

CSGnet Archive CSG2004
1

[From Rick Marken (2004.12.29.0900)]

Bruce Gregory (2004.1229.1034)]

I just came across the following in a book by Llinas that may help to
answer a question Rick raised:

"The issue of subjectivity is a hotly debated topic in the fields of
philosophy and the cognitive sciences. But is subjectivity necessary at
all? Why is it not just enough to see and react, as a robot might
do?... For myself, I suspect that subjectivity is what the nervous
system is all about, even at the most primitive levels of evolution."

I don't know what question of mine this is supposed to be an answer to. It
doesn't seem to be much of an answer to any question except, possibly "What
do you think subjectivity is all about, Dr. Llinas"? And the answer to that
question is not very informative either. That's what the nervous system is
all about? The most primitive levels of evolution?

The paragraph quoted above is a beautiful example of what Mary Powers called
"understandingness". If this is what people find illuminating then they
certainly won't find illumination in PCT.

it seems to me that the distinction between this view and Bill's is
pretty stark.

Indeed. I think a quote like this could be used as a negative shibboleth for
PCT. If you find this quote illuminating you should probably avoid PCT; it
will just get you upset.

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

2

From Dan Mayer (2004.12.29.1234)

In a message dated 12/29/2004 12:01:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, marken@MINDREADINGS.COM writes:

[From Rick Marken (2004.12.29.0900)]

I don’t know what question of mine this is supposed to be an answer to. It
doesn’t seem to be much of an answer to any question except, possibly “What
do you think subjectivity is all about, Dr. Llinas”? And the answer to that
question is not very informative either. That’s what the nervous system is
all about? The most primitive levels of evolution?
That’s one thing. But you must understand why there is any behavior at all. Contrary to your view, behavior is not simply to ‘correct’ for ‘error’. Behavior from an evolutionary point of view is to allow us to move and navigate in the environment. That is the reason we need a nervous system in the first place and why plants don’t have nervous systems like we do.

BTW, an ‘evolutionary’ perspective does not preclude the belief in a creator or god. It simply talks about how we have evolved to meet the demands of living in a changing and variable world

The paragraph quoted above is a beautiful example of what Mary Powers called
“understandingness”. If this is what people find illuminating then they
certainly won’t find illumination in PCT.
Yes, I know this.

Indeed. I think a quote like this could be used as a negative shibboleth for
PCT. If you find this quote illuminating you should probably avoid PCT; it
will just get you upset.

I agree, but I don’t think anyone need get ‘upset’ over this

These are simply different story’s that you can treat any number of different ways.

Anecdotally, there are any number of ‘religions’ and non-religious belief systems operating in the world today. There can only be one of two possible ‘right’ answers. One, is that one group is ‘right’ and everyone else is wrong. The second, is that all are wrong and something we have yet to understand is actually behind it all. In this case everyone is ‘wrong’.

In either case though, this does not seem to affect the way either people live their lives or the solace and benefit the get from believing as they do, even though in the best of cases, most of us have misinformed belief systems.

I believe we should understand that a story is only as useful as each of us perceives it to be because in the end, all of us are probably barking up the wrong tree anyway.

DM

3

[From Rick Marken (2004.12.29.1145)]

Dan Mayer (2004.12.29.1234)

Contrary to your view, behavior is not simply to 'correct' for 'error'.
Behavior from an evolutionary point of view is to allow us to _move_ and
navigate in the environment.

And why do you suppose we move and navigate in the environment? Perhaps it's
to get to places we want to get to? Which involves acting to reduce the
discrepancy between where we are (perception) and where we want to be
(reference)? That discrepancy being called "error"? Contrary to your view
of my view of behavior, I know that people (and all living things, including
plants) have evolved to move or stand still, as required, to achieve their
goals.

BTW, an 'evolutionary' perspective does not preclude the belief in a creator
or god.

Thank god! Though it depends on what god or creator your talking about. The
god of Abraham, in that beautiful poem called Genesis, made it pretty clear
that evolution wasn't the way we got here.

I believe we should understand that a story is only as useful as each of us
perceives it to be because in the end, all of us are probably barking up the
wrong tree anyway.

I disagree. I believe that we should understand that the usefulness of a
story can be evaluated by implementing the story as a working model and
testing it in properly conducted experiments. This is called the scientific
approach to knowledge and it the preferred approach on CSGNet.

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

4

From Dan Mayer (2004.12.29.1515)

I said in my last post that I was leaving but I saw this new post and felt it only gentlemanly to respond.

In a message dated 12/29/2004 2:52:02 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, marken@MINDREADINGS.COM writes:

[From Rick Marken (2004.12.29.1145)]

And why do you suppose we move and navigate in the environment? Perhaps it’s
to get to places we want to get to? Which involves acting to reduce the
discrepancy between where we are (perception) and where we want to be
(reference)? That discrepancy being called “error”? Contrary to your view
of my view of behavior, I know that people (and all living things, including
plants) have evolved to move or stand still, as required, to achieve their
goals.
Yes Rick, you quite right in all this. The problem, if there is one, is that your view is a mechanistic view of how we move. Llinas has focused on Why we move.

Thank god! Though it depends on what god or creator your talking about. The
god of Abraham, in that beautiful poem called Genesis, made it pretty clear
that evolution wasn’t the way we got here.
Is this supposed to be in response to something I said or did?

I disagree. I believe that we should understand that the usefulness of a
story can be evaluated by implementing the story as a working model and
testing it in properly conducted experiments. This is called the scientific
approach to knowledge and it the preferred approach on CSGNet.
We’ll see which story is adopted in the long run. Llinas’ model is not yet well known, and I’m not even sure he understands what he actually has. You have had a 35 year head start.

To say Llinas is not a scientist is nothing more than ignorance on your part, which you seem to have in abundant quantities. But Llinas is in no contest with you or anyone else. He did not publish a book to start a new theory of human behavior or cognition. This book is really a very well thought out compilation of 25 years of research in neuronal neuroscience.

You should stick with whatever story you feel most comfortable with, after all a billion Chinese can’t be wrong, so I guess a few hundred million Muslims can’t be wrong either. Or can they?

Bye,

DM