david@epicb.UUCP (David P. Cook) (12/08/88)
> Does Emotion and Feeling come from Thought? Or the other way around? In speaking of these items... I assume you mean modern man as opposed to early man? Some recent findings cause "the people who think of such things" to theorize that "Thought" (or to be more apt... "Intelligence") stems from mans early usage of psycoactive plants. As pointed out... early **non-thinking** man would forage for survival. Part of the forage system was to EAT EVERYTHING and THROW UP that which did not sit properly. In doing so, early man would eat the psychoactive mushroom. The properties would cause their conconscience to expand slightly... and the beauty of the mushroom itself would stand out. Therefore, early man would continuouly return to the mushroom... each time pushing their minds further and further. From this we can postulate that **Intelligent Thought** was "aquired" (by intelligent thought I mean thought that can lead to civilization). Therefore, prior to intelligent thought, early man must have had basic Feeling and Emotion. These were the simpliest and most basic of structures and were the easiest for the properties of the mushroom to act upon. Once thought was occuring, it was Feeling and Emotion that drove early man back to the mushroom. However, over the centuries... man has developed a more complex organization of thought. Though I still believe that Thought is a more complex, hence higher level, function than Feeling and Emotion, the three are interwoven. Feeling and Emotion can beget Thought... and Thought can beget Feeling and Emotion. Look at suicide where a continuous loop of Thought... Feeling... Emotion... Thought... Feeling... Emotion... build to create a no-win (no-way-out) situation. Therefore, I feel that in EARLY man, you can say that Feeling and Emotion begat Thought (via environmental issues). In MODERN man, both beget each other (ie.. thought makes feeling and emotion and feeling and emotion make thought). Though Feeling and Emotion remain the prevasive and lowest survivalistic instinct. Another proof of this can be seen in the "highly emotional state" of humans. Humans placed in an extreemly emotional situation TEND to react automatically (or WITHOUT THOUGHT). It is only under EXTREEM learning (via thought) that barriers can be created to overcome the SEMANTIC REACTION which occurs NATURALLY and at a very LOW LEVEL. (For more on this, study NON-ARISTITILIAN logic). --- GREAT TOPIC --- LET'S TALK MORE ABOUT IT! David Cook, Truevision Inc. uunet!epicb!david -- | David P. Cook Net: uunet!epicb!david | | Truevision Inc. | "Sometimes I cover my mouth with | | Indianapolis, IN | my hand to tell if I'm breathing" | -----------------------------------------------------------
bickel@nprdc.arpa (Steven Bickel) (12/09/88)
In article <569@epicb.UUCP> david@epicb.UUCP (David P. Cook) writes: >> Does Emotion and Feeling come from Thought? Or the other way around? > >In speaking of these items... I assume you mean modern man as opposed to >early man? > >Some recent findings cause "the people who think of such things" to theorize >that "Thought" (or to be more apt... "Intelligence") stems from mans early >usage of psycoactive plants. Do you have any anthoropological references for this concept or is it some form of drug culture folklore (Carlos Casteneda)? From what I have read concerning evolutionary development of cognition: intelligence developed because humans discovered that forms of farming were far more productive and life sustaining than gathering. Farming required more thought and therefore increases in thought were supported as an evolutionary trend. Steve Bickel Steve Bickel bickel@nprdc.arpa Systems Engineering Assoc. (619) 553-9306 Naval Personel R & D Center.
ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe) (12/09/88)
In article <1146@arctic.nprdc.arpa> bickel@nprdc.arpa (Steven Bickel) writes: > From what I have read concerning evolutionary development of > cognition: intelligence developed because humans discovered that > forms of farming were far more productive and life sustaining > than gathering. Farming required more thought and therefore > increases in thought were supported as an evolutionary trend. There are human groups which, as far as we can tell, have never practiced agriculture. (The KoiSan amongst others.) They are not widely regarded as being particularly stupid. Remember, agriculture is a *very* recent development in humans, biologically speaking. Hunting-and-gathering is actually quite a successful mode of life: agriculture does _not_ provide a better quality of life for individuals (not before mechanisation); just ask an archaeologist about the (apparent) incidence of disease before and after the introduction of agriculture. What agriculture permits is a higher population density, the development of a leisured class, and other forms of specialisation.
cww@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU (Charles William Webster) (12/09/88)
In article <1146@arctic.nprdc.arpa> bickel@nprdc.arpa (Steven Bickel) writes: [stuff deleted] > From what I have read concerning evolutionary development of > cognition: intelligence developed because humans discovered that > forms of farming were far more productive and life sustaining > than gathering. Farming required more thought and therefore > increases in thought were supported as an evolutionary trend. > > Steve Bickel One theory (not a main-stream one) put forth by a physical anthropologist in Europe is that the use of our neocortex for higher cognition is a case of pre-adaption. That is, the highly parallel and interconnected cortex evolved for some other purpose than the cognitive abilities we are so proud of. His candidate for this other ability is the resistance to damage that parallelism buys. In physical abilities man does not compare particularly favorably with selected other animals, except the stamina for the long distance running necessary to tire prey out, and then dispatch them. Even small increases in temperature can disable a nervous system. Sustained physical activity creates heat. Greater parallelism provides the redundancy to withstand the misfunctions of individual neurons in the brain due to their hot mileu. Once we had all this extra nervous tissue, it eventually got put to "better" use. There is something almost poetic about this account. It's neat to run and contemplate, and realize that the two may be profoundly connected. --Chuck
geb@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU (Gordon E. Banks) (12/10/88)
In article <1146@arctic.nprdc.arpa> bickel@nprdc.arpa (Steven Bickel) writes: > > From what I have read concerning evolutionary development of > cognition: intelligence developed because humans discovered that > forms of farming were far more productive and life sustaining > than gathering. Farming required more thought and therefore > increases in thought were supported as an evolutionary trend. I doubt that agriculture is anywhere near as old as human intelligence. Were the Neanderthals agricultural? They certainly were very intelligent, and even had religion. Hunting also requires intelligence, and many of the most intelligent animals are carnivores and hunters.
bickel@nprdc.arpa (Steven Bickel) (12/10/88)
In article <1857@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> geb@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu (Gordon E. Banks) writes: >In article <1146@arctic.nprdc.arpa> bickel@nprdc.arpa (Steven Bickel) writes: >> >> From what I have read concerning evolutionary development of >> cognition: intelligence developed because humans discovered that >> forms of farming were far more productive and life sustaining >> than gathering. Farming required more thought and therefore >> increases in thought were supported as an evolutionary trend. > >I doubt that agriculture is anywhere near as old as human intelligence. >Were the Neanderthals agricultural? They certainly were very intelligent, >and even had religion. Hunting also requires intelligence, and many >of the most intelligent animals are carnivores and hunters. Good point. I later realized that the concept of farming that I was referring to was one where cognitive processing with significant association to "long term" memory is required. This is opposed to gathering which is to interract with what you see. These concepts are normally considered to be agricultural in nature, but I was referring to them in the broader sense. Also I am referring to intelligence to be the very same processes that allow references to past events. This I believe is a relatively recent ( in the last 10 thousand years) evolutionary development. Disclaimer: I do not know what long term memory is, only when it is needed. Steve Bickel
geb@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU (Gordon E. Banks) (12/11/88)
In article <1152@arctic.nprdc.arpa> bickel@nprdc.arpa (Steven Bickel) writes: > > Good point. I later realized that the concept of farming that I was > referring to was one where cognitive processing with significant > association to "long term" memory is required. This is opposed to > gathering which is to interract with what you see. These concepts are > normally considered to be agricultural in nature, but I was referring > to them in the broader sense. Also I am referring to intelligence to > be the very same processes that allow references to past events. > This I believe is a relatively recent ( in the last 10 thousand years) > evolutionary development. > > Disclaimer: I do not know what long term memory is, only when it is needed. > ong term memory to neurologists refers to the ability to recall events and experiences which happened to the person (animal) in the remote past. Certainly animals have long term memory. If a person is feared by a cat, for example, the cat will recognize td person even years later. I would supposone would be very poor at learning to hunt if one had no long term memory. It would be difficult to recall the habits of the game animals as well as strategies for trapping them and methods of group hunting. Also, how would you explain the evolution of stone tools, given no long term memory. Every time a person wanted to make a tool, he would have to "reinvent the wheel" not havin any recall of past attempts. Also, paintings made deep inside of cave depict animals which were presumably painted from memory, rather than from dead animals dragged into the cave to serv modemodels. Long term memory is the last type to go in Alzheimer's patients. I kind of doubt that it originated as recently as 10000years ago.
bwk@mitre-bedford.ARPA (Barry W. Kort) (12/11/88)
In article <569@epicb.UUCP> david@epicb.UUCP (David P. Cook) writes: >Humans placed in an extreemly emotional situation TEND to react automatically >(or WITHOUT THOUGHT). It is only under EXTREEM learning (via thought) that >barriers can be created to overcome the SEMANTIC REACTION which occurs >NATURALLY and at a very LOW LEVEL. (For more on this, study NON-ARISTITILIAN >logic). > >--- GREAT TOPIC --- LET'S TALK MORE ABOUT IT! Gee, David, you seem so excited. Before we wee-wee in our pants, let's see if we can't tidy up our language communication channel. Did you mean "Somatic Reaction" where you typed "SEMANTIC REACTION"? By "barriers" do you mean inhibition and regulation of instinctive wired-in behaviors. By "EXTREEM learning" do you mean replacing instinctive behaviors by acquired behaviors, thoughtfully chosen to achieve practical goals? By "NON-ARISTITILAN logic", do you mean the adoption of the Socratic Method or Scientific Method of learning and knowledge acquisition? (I'm sure Aristotle would approve, since his methods of reasoning form part of the foundation for the creating other powerful forms of reasoning.) If this is what you had in mind, perhaps we could talk more about it. --Barry Kort
dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) (12/11/88)
In article <1152@arctic.nprdc.arpa>, bickel@nprdc.arpa (Steven Bickel) writes: > I later realized that the concept of farming that I was > referring to was one where cognitive processing with significant > association to "long term" memory is required. [ ... ] > This I believe is a relatively recent ( in the last 10 thousand years) > evolutionary development. You seem to be implying that human intelligence has evolved significantly in the last 10 thousand years. I thought this idea had already lost its justification -- after all, individuals from cultures that have never had agriculture do not seem to show any inferiority in standard measures of ``intelligence.'' Does anyone doubt that you could adopt a population of bush infants and raise them to be (on average) successful members of any contemporary society. Some years ago I read a book by one Arthur Custance (I believe), in which he discussed the incredibly elaborate knowledge structures and technology of supposedly ``primitive'' cultures. He reported on tribal cultures that had vocabularies as large as the English language. These people had not just one word for ``river,'' but a different word for every bend in each river. Custance also discussed the ingenious and efficient technology that permits Eskimos to thrive in an environment where zero degrees Celsius is a heat wave. Eskimo garments are still preferred by many Polar explorers to their modern equivalents. The eskimos found a way to kill polar bears with a lump of fat, a strand of sinew, and a short piece of whalebone. (Answer: whittle both ends of the whalebone to sharp points, roll it into a tight circle, tie it with the sinew, pack the fat around it, and toss it out on the ice. Polar bear happens by, swallows the lump, digests the sinew, sproing, ouch, dead bear.) How long would I survive if you dumped me on an ice floe and flew away? Considerable evidence points to some forms of intelligence emerging without any concurrent concrete environmental benefit. Humans have had the ability to do mathematics for millenia now (as far as we can tell). However, mathematical ability seems to have been largely useless until recently. I have seen interesting speculation that mathematical ability is a lucky side effect of learning how to throw hunting missiles, but to me that sounds like a long shot. :-) Cheers, Dan Mocsny dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu
bickel@nprdc.arpa (Steven Bickel) (12/11/88)
In article <1863@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> geb@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu (Gordon E. Banks) writes: >In article <1152@arctic.nprdc.arpa> bickel@nprdc.arpa (Steven Bickel) writes: >> >> Good point. I later realized that the concept of farming that I was >> referring to was one where cognitive processing with significant >> association to "long term" memory is required. This is opposed to >> gathering which is to interract with what you see. These concepts are >> normally considered to be agricultural in nature, but I was referring >> to them in the broader sense. Also I am referring to intelligence to >> be the very same processes that allow references to past events. >> This I believe is a relatively recent ( in the last 10 thousand years) >> evolutionary development. >> >> Disclaimer: I do not know what long term memory is, only when it is needed. >> >long term memory to neurologists refers to the ability to recall events and >experiences which happened to the person (animal) in the remote past. >Certainly animals have long term memory. If a person is feared by a cat, >for example, the cat will recognize td person even years later. The cat will "react" to its long term memory of the feared person, this is not what I mean by significant association. The primary occurence in the last 10,000 years has been the development of lauguage, which, followed or coresponded with the significant increases in cognitive processing with long term memory. Primitive man had long term memories, but, did not cognitively utilize it to any large extent until the period of extensive development of language. There are a few isolated exceptions to this time period, but, for humans as a collective society it has occured only in the last 10,000 years. (unless somewhere there is a lost city of atlantis or what have you). New Disclaimer: I do not know what long term memory is, only that it is used for extended relational cognitive processing concerning past events. Steve Bickel
bickel@nprdc.arpa (Steven Bickel) (12/12/88)
In article <496@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes: >You seem to be implying that human intelligence has evolved significantly >in the last 10 thousand years. > >I thought this idea had already lost its justification -- after all, >individuals from cultures that have never had agriculture do not seem >to show any inferiority in standard measures of ``intelligence.'' >Does anyone doubt that you could adopt a population of bush infants >and raise them to be (on average) successful members of any >contemporary society. First, forget about the words "farming" and "agriculture". Now think only about the cognitive processes that are needed for farming. These same cognitive processes are used by the bushman of the Kalihari (spelling?) to collect and store water. These types of processes have evolved significantly only in the last 10,000 years, and, have coincided with the development of language, which, almost all primitive tribes have, and, therefore fit into the farming period concept (last 10,000 years). I should have used the concept of farming consciousness with more explanation. Good Reading :-) J. Jaynes, The origin of consciousness and the breakdown of the bicameral mind. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1976. J. Campbell. The masks of god. New York: Viking. vol 1, 1959. G. Leonard, The Transformation. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970. K. Wilbur, Up From Eden, New Science Library, 1981. _____________ Steve Bickel
kortge@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Chris Kortge) (12/12/88)
In article <1154@arctic.nprdc.arpa> bickel@nprdc.arpa (Steven Bickel) writes: > First, forget about the words "farming" and "agriculture". Now think > only about the cognitive processes that are needed for farming. > These same cognitive processes are used by the bushman of the > Kalihari (spelling?) to collect and store water. These types > of processes have evolved significantly only in the last 10,000 > years, and, have coincided with the development of language, which, > almost all primitive tribes have, and, therefore fit into the > farming period concept (last 10,000 years). I should have used > the concept of farming consciousness with more explanation. Careful in how you word that! I think what you mean is that language evolved _by_ 10,000 years ago, not _after_. If you really mean exactly what you wrote here, you're crazy! :-) This may be the reason for the flack people have been giving you about your postings on this. Chris Kortge kortge@psych.stanford.edu
ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe) (12/12/88)
In article <1153@arctic.nprdc.arpa> bickel@nprdc.arpa (Steven Bickel) writes: >The primary > occurence in the last 10,000 years has been the development of > lauguage, which, followed or coresponded with the significant > increases in cognitive processing with long term memory. I am fascinated to discover that someone _knows_ what the cognitive capacities of our ancestors were >10 kyr ago. Given that the first cities (Catal Huyak (sp?) and Jericho) were built around 9 kyr ago, I have a really hard time believing that language developed only within the last 10kyr. The only definite piece of evidence that I know of about when human language developed is the configuration of the larynx. One of the major features which distinguishes mammals from other creatures is their ability to breathe while eating. We are exceptional: we can't, even though other apes can. Apparently the location of the voice-box can be distinguished in some fossils, and this is a _clue_ to when speech might have come into existence. I haven't got the relevant references handy, but I do recall that Cro-Magnon man had the right configuration right from the start, so we're talking about rather more than 10 kyr. There is some doubt about whether Neanderthals could speak, but that doesn't mean that they didn't have _language_: they might have used manual signals. Given the evidence that Neanderthals had some kind of religion, it is difficult to believe that they did not have long-term memory. "Correspond with" = "exchange mail with". I think Bickel may have meant "correspond to".
lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) (12/12/88)
From article <1154@arctic.nprdc.arpa>, by bickel@nprdc.arpa (Steven Bickel):
" Kalihari (spelling?) to collect and store water. These types
" of processes have evolved significantly only in the last 10,000
" years, and, have coincided with the development of language, which,
" almost all primitive tribes have, and, therefore fit into the
~~~~~~~~~~
Make that all.
" farming period concept (last 10,000 years). I should have used
" the concept of farming consciousness with more explanation.
This dating of the origin of language is, to put it kindly, purely
speculative. I see little relationship here to Jaynes' thesis,
which is itself just an interesting speculation.
Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edugeb@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU (Gordon E. Banks) (12/12/88)
In article <1154@arctic.nprdc.arpa> bickel@nprdc.arpa (Steven Bickel) writes: > Good Reading :-) > > J. Jaynes, The origin of consciousness and the breakdown of the > bicameral mind. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1976. > Now I know where that idea about language and consciousness evolving in the last 10000 years came from! Jaynes' thesis is considered quack by every anthropologist I have talked to. It is highly interesting, but also highly unlikely. Not quite as bad as Velikovsky, but getting there. Actually, Jaynes seemed to base his theories more on literary evidence from ancient writings such as the Iliad. I didn't find his arguments convincing.
bickel@nprdc.arpa (Steven Bickel) (12/13/88)
In article <4349@Portia.Stanford.EDU> kortge@Portia.stanford.edu (Chris Kortge) writes: > >> ... These types >> of processes have evolved significantly only in the last 10,000 >> years, and, have coincided with the development of language, which, >> almost all primitive tribes have, and, therefore fit into the >> farming period concept (last 10,000 years). > >Careful in how you word that! I think what you mean is that language >evolved _by_ 10,000 years ago, not _after_. If you really mean exactly >what you wrote here, you're crazy! :-) This may be the reason for the >flack people have been giving you about your postings on this. Good observation. My error. Language has been evolving for a very long time. The physical brain structures that we seem to need for higher level language communication appear to have evolved as long as 200,000 years ago and this time period is widely debated. The key to understanding my concept is that the function and structure of communication, and congitive processing changed dramatically in a relatively short period. This evolutionary concept does not necessarily coincide with dramatic physical changes in the brain structure. It is more likely that the evolution of human cognition (as we know it - define it however you like) is not a linearly increasing curve, rather it goes through periods of rapid increases followed by plateaus (my hypothesis extracted from the general rapid change and plateau theory of evolutionary change). We appear to be in the middle of a rapid change period. Steve Bickel
bickel@nprdc.arpa (Steven Bickel) (12/13/88)
In article <1867@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> geb@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu (Gordon E. Banks) writes: >In article <1154@arctic.nprdc.arpa> bickel@nprdc.arpa (Steven Bickel) writes: >> Good Reading :-) >> >> J. Jaynes, The origin of consciousness and the breakdown of the >> bicameral mind. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1976. >> > >Now I know where that idea about language and consciousness >evolving in the last 10000 years came from! Jaynes' thesis is >considered quack by every anthropologist I have talked to. >It is highly interesting, but also highly unlikely. Not quite >as bad as Velikovsky, but getting there. Actually, Jaynes seemed >to base his theories more on literary evidence from ancient writings >such as the Iliad. I didn't find his arguments convincing. In the four references I listed there are large disagreements in many specific areas. I do not entirely agree with Jaynes thesis, but, his concept of the "bicameral mind being a product of language" seems reasonable. Wilbur seems to have a much better grasp of how the pieces fit together, but, I do not agree with his concept of a Superconsciousness as the ultimate developmental growth stage. The overall concepts portrayed by all of them collectively fit the evolutionary concept of rapid periods of adaptation/growth followed by plateau periods. I believe that this "general theory" is widely accepted by the anthropological community - It has been widely publicized lately and I am not aware of any criticisms. Steve Bickel
smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu (Stephen Smoliar) (12/13/88)
In article <1867@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> geb@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu (Gordon E. Banks) writes: >In article <1154@arctic.nprdc.arpa> bickel@nprdc.arpa (Steven Bickel) writes: >> Good Reading :-) >> >> J. Jaynes, The origin of consciousness and the breakdown of the >> bicameral mind. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1976. >> > >Now I know where that idea about language and consciousness >evolving in the last 10000 years came from! Jaynes' thesis is >considered quack by every anthropologist I have talked to. >It is highly interesting, but also highly unlikely. Not quite >as bad as Velikovsky, but getting there. Actually, Jaynes seemed >to base his theories more on literary evidence from ancient writings >such as the Iliad. I didn't find his arguments convincing. It is probably a good idea to have reservations about any author whose only empirical evidence comes from introspection while under the influence of hallucinogens. However, Jaynes at least deserves points for telling us this about these "sources" explicitly in his book.
ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe) (12/13/88)
In article <1159@arctic.nprdc.arpa> bickel@nprdc.arpa (Steven Bickel) writes: > Language has been evolving for a very long > time. The physical brain structures that we seem to need for higher level > language communication appear to have evolved as long as 200,000 years ago > and this time period is widely debated. The key to understanding my > concept is that the function and structure of communication, > and congitive processing changed dramatically in a relatively short period. > This evolutionary concept does not necessarily coincide with dramatic > physical changes in the brain structure. Myself, I would be reluctant to conclude much from an endocranial cast. If there is any more direct evidence available about what the "physical brain structures" (are there non-physical brains?) were 200,000 years ago, it would be *extremely* interesting to hear about it. (What a pity Broca didn't live back then. If he had, he might have left us some preserved brains.) It is certainly possible that "the .. structure of communication ... changed dramatically in a relatively short period". As a whole-hearted believer in Punctuated Equilibrium, I would expect as much (at any rate, of changes near a speciation event). BUT WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE? How can we know that "cognitive processing changed dramatically in a" period unless we know what it was like both before and after the period? We still don't know whether human language is based on a novel facility (as Chomsky claims) or whether it is solely a function of general cognitive facilities (as Lakoff and others claim). So we don't even know what *this* end of the interval is! As for knowing how people 200,000 years ago thought and communicated, I really would love to know how that was discovered. (Did someone ask Ramtha, maybe? :-)
bickel@nprdc.arpa (Steven Bickel) (12/14/88)
In article <854@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >In article <1159@arctic.nprdc.arpa> bickel@nprdc.arpa (Steven Bickel) writes: >> Language has been evolving for a very long >> time. The physical brain structures that we seem to need for higher level >> language communication appear to have evolved as long as 200,000 years ago >> and this time period is widely debated. The key to understanding my >> concept is that the function and structure of communication, >> and cognitive processing changed dramatically in a relatively short period. >> This evolutionary concept does not necessarily coincide with dramatic >> physical changes in the brain structure. > >Myself, I would be reluctant to conclude much from an endocranial cast. >If there is any more direct evidence available about what the "physical brain >structures" (are there non-physical brains?) were 200,000 years ago, it would >be *extremely* interesting to hear about it. (What a pity Broca didn't live >back then. If he had, he might have left us some preserved brains.) By physical brain structures I was trying to differentiate the difference between function and structure ( mind -vs- brain ). >It is certainly possible that "the .. structure of communication ... >changed dramatically in a relatively short period". As a whole-hearted >believer in Punctuated Equilibrium, I would expect as much (at any rate, >of changes near a speciation event). BUT WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE? The evidence is entirely anthropological speculation based upon the chronology of artifacts that also fit into everyone (?) elses theories. Within the chronology of the artifacts there appear to be determinable (I can hear you laughing now :-)) cognitive functional capacities within specific periods, localized to specific cultures and generalized across many. >How can we know that "cognitive processing changed dramatically in a" period >unless we know what it was like both before and after the period? >We still don't know whether human language is based on a novel facility >(as Chomsky claims) or whether it is solely a function of general >cognitive facilities (as Lakoff and others claim). So we don't even know >what *this* end of the interval is! As for knowing how people 200,000 >years ago thought and communicated, I really would love to know how that >was discovered. (Did someone ask Ramtha, maybe? :-) I would suggest you read Wilber's Up From Eden and try to wade through the Zen like philosophies and you might appreciate his work as myself and many others have: An elegant combination of Piaget's developmental stages, Freud's id-ego-Superego, and the historical development of the human psyche (Eastern and Western approaches)(read ch 5 first for information pertaining directly to this discussion). We can only speculate from anthropological bits and pieces and If I have sounded confident in my understanding of what life was like 10,000 years ago it was primarily to direct attention to what appear to me to be the best parts and pieces of the theories I am aware of. Incidentally this book was recommended to me by a member of the National Committee for the Advancement of Self Esteem (some title like that). The purpose of this committee is to help in the development of policies/programs/guidelines that encourage societal growth. I have not read much on this subject for a few years, but, If you could suggest something you like I would be interested. :-) Steve Bickel
ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe) (12/14/88)
In article <1169@arctic.nprdc.arpa> bickel@nprdc.arpa (Steven Bickel) writes: > ... The evidence is entirely anthropological speculation ... > ... We can only speculate > from anthropological bits and pieces ... Just so. > Within the chronology of the artifacts there appear to > be determinable (I can hear you laughing now :-)) cognitive functional > capacities within specific periods, localized to specific cultures and > generalized across many. Did someone give this feller a BuzzPhrase generator? I think you will find very few professional archaeologists claiming that they can distinguish any changes in human cognitive capacities since the first appearance of Homo sapiens sapiens. Which is not to say that there _were_ no such changes, only that archaeology provides us with radically incomplete information about what people _did_ and _made_, and essentially no information about what they were _capable_ of. If I had lived 100 years ago, I would never have used a computer, never have sung in a choir performing with a couple of other choirs by satellite linkup, never have driven a car. I would almost certainly have been an uneducated servant. The kind of traces such a person leaves in the archaeological record would give no shadow of a clue that I _am_ able to do these things given the right context.
bickel@nprdc.arpa (Steven Bickel) (12/16/88)
In article <862@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >I think you will find very few professional archaeologists claiming that ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Did you mean anthropologists? >they can distinguish any changes in human cognitive capacities since the >first appearance of Homo sapiens sapiens. Which is not to say that >there _were_ no such changes, only that archaeology provides us with >radically incomplete information about what people _did_ and _made_, >and essentially no information about what they were _capable_ of. Anthropology always will be speculative because it relies as much on the lack of artifactual evidence as on the discovered. This is simply the nature of the beast. When studying human beings it seems entirely appropriate to include all sources of information including current psychological theories which in themselves are widely debated. Integration of the parts and pieces of many revelant theories is the leading edge of any science. >If I >had lived 100 years ago, I would never have used a computer, never have >sung in a choir performing with a couple of other choirs by satellite >linkup, never have driven a car. I would almost certainly have been an >uneducated servant. The kind of traces such a person leaves in the >archaeological record would give no shadow of a clue that I _am_ able >to do these things given the right context. You probably would have been an intelligent servent with with well developed logical and rhetorical analysis capabilities. Whether anyone could have determined this would be hard to say but because you would have been part of a culture, generalization is easier. Steve Bickel
ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe) (12/16/88)
In article <1182@arctic.nprdc.arpa> bickel@nprdc.arpa (Steven Bickel) writes: >In article <862@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >>I think you will find very few professional archaeologists claiming that > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Did you mean anthropologists? > No, I meant archaeologists. Anthropologists study living societies. They have informants. Archaeologists study dead societies. They have shovels. Archaeologists may appeal to anthropological data for models of what the past might have been like, but that doesn't make them anthropologists any more than their appeal to medical data for explanations of lesions in skeletons makes them doctors. > Anthropology always will be speculative because it relies as much > on the lack of artifactual evidence as on the discovered. This > is simply the nature of the beast. Archaeology, in contrast, does *not* rely on lack of artefactual evidence, only on its presence. If an archaeologist doesn't find anything he recognises as the remains of a house, he won't say "these people didn't have houses", he'll say "we don't know what kind of dwellings these people lived in". There are cases where you can be reasonably confident that a particular group of people didn't have writing at some time, but not _just_ because you don't find writing then, but because you _do_ find a crude form of writing later and more sophisticated forms after that. >>If I >had lived 100 years ago ... > You probably would have been an intelligent servent with with well > developed logical and rhetorical analysis capabilities. The probability is that I would not have survived childhood. If I had survived childhood, I would not have had the education which is necessary to develop logical thinking (it isn't natural). My point is that we cannot determine what my great-grandfather's _capabilities_ were (would he have been able to understand the Spinor calculus had he been taught it?), how much more absurd it is to claim that radical changes in the physical basis of human mental capacity have taken place recently without definite evidence. The basic hypothesis behind AI is that there is a level above which cognition is independent of its substrate. The range of brain size in modern adult human males is something like 900-2200 cc, and within this range the size doesn't seem to make much difference [source: Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man", from (unreliable) memory]. It seems to be pretty solidly established that two things can substantially influence the IQ of an adult: nutrition as a child, and education. (I am _not_ saying that IQ is a satisfactory measure.) Have there been substantial changes in human nutrition throughout history? Too right there have! (One boundary between two culture periods in my home country is marked quite clearly by a difference in tooth & jaw wear in skeletons; and there is a well known sequence of population booms in Britain following the introduction of better plows & new food-stuffs.) Is that likely to have had an effect on how smart the adults were? Certainly it is! Have there been substantial changes in the amount of education available to children and the content of that education? Definitely! Are some conceptual structures more effective than others? Sure! Has the course of human history been shaped by disease? Read "Rats, Lice, and History"! Is there any evidence of some cognitive development since the appearance of homo sapiens sapiens which cannot be adequately accounted for by known "environmental" factors like these? Let's hear of it! The time to go looking for speculative theories is when the theory you already have is breaking down.
bickel@nprdc.arpa (Steven Bickel) (12/17/88)
In article <881@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >It seems to be >pretty solidly established that two things can substantially influence >the IQ of an adult: nutrition as a child, and education. (I am _not_ >saying that IQ is a satisfactory measure.) Have there been substantial >changes in human nutrition throughout history? Too right there have! >(One boundary between two culture periods in my home country is marked >quite clearly by a difference in tooth & jaw wear in skeletons; and there >is a well known sequence of population booms in Britain following the >introduction of better plows & new food-stuffs.) Is that likely to have >had an effect on how smart the adults were? Certainly it is! Have there >been substantial changes in the amount of education available to children >and the content of that education? Definitely! Are some conceptual >structures more effective than others? Sure! Has the course of human >history been shaped by disease? Read "Rats, Lice, and History"! >Is there any evidence of some cognitive development since the appearance >of homo sapiens sapiens which cannot be adequately accounted for by known >"environmental" factors like these? Let's hear of it! > >The time to go looking for speculative theories is when the theory >you already have is breaking down. I think we are in complete agreement. Archeological evidence suggests - approximately 10,000 years ago humans started living in villages, there were marked improvements in agriculture and general nutritional stores, and there was the need and environment for education because of the interpersonal communications that go along with organized communities. :-) yes? Are there any communities that existed much earlier than 10,000 years? By the way I asked a friend what the latest good reading is in anthropology etc. Eisler, R., The Chalice & the Blade, Harper & Row, 1988. ( Just opened it up - looks good!, lots of praise from peers. Concerned with why we are a warlike society from a gender relationship perspective. Eisler is also a believer in the cultural phenomena of Punctuated Equilibria). Eldredge & Gould, Punctuated Equilibria. (you already know of this one). Steve Bickel
jeff@aipna.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) (01/10/89)
In article <1867@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> geb@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu (Gordon E. Banks) writes: >Now I know where that idea about language and consciousness >evolving in the last 10000 years came from! Jaynes' thesis is >considered quack by every anthropologist I have talked to. I'm not sure why you think anthropologists are the right people to ask. Disagreements on this subject are often due to different ideas about what "consciousness" means. Many people think animals are conscious, which seems rather unlikely given how much of our internal experience involves language. I'm not sure what it means to say a rat is conscious. But some people think consciousness is something rats might have, and they would certainly disagree with Jaynes. But then I'd say they were talking about different things. And, in any case, Jaynes says some interesting things about consciousness that seem to be independent of his "bichameral mind" ideas.
geb@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU (Gordon E. Banks) (01/11/89)
In article <440@aipna.ed.ac.uk> jeff@uk.ac.ed.aipna.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) writes: >In article <1867@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> geb@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu (Gordon E. Banks) writes: >>Now I know where that idea about language and consciousness >>evolving in the last 10000 years came from! Jaynes' thesis is >>considered quack by every anthropologist I have talked to. > >I'm not sure why you think anthropologists are the right people to ask. > Well, I admit I haven't talked to the new age people or the Scientologists. Who would you consider authorities on this subject? >Disagreements on this subject are often due to different ideas about >what "consciousness" means. Many people think animals are conscious, which >seems rather unlikely given how much of our internal experience involves >language. I'm not sure what it means to say a rat is conscious. But >some people think consciousness is something rats might have, and they >would certainly disagree with Jaynes. But then I'd say they were talking >about different things. > >And, in any case, Jaynes says some interesting things about consciousness >that seem to be independent of his "bichameral mind" ideas. I agree he says some interesting things. I just didn't think his evidence supports such a radical thesis. The "internal voice" aspect of our consciousness is certainly one of the most easily noticed aspects of it. One could, of course, define consciousness as that verbal aspect of it. I would be hard put to consider deaf-mutes nonconscious, or even Helen Keller before she learned to communicate. I would bet that many of the great apes are conscious. They seem to display behavior indicating they are.
lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) (01/11/89)
From article <1994@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU>, by geb@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU (Gordon E. Banks): " ... I would bet " that many of the great apes are conscious. They seem to display behavior " indicating they are. Not if you follow along with Jaynes' ideas about what sorts of behavior can be performed unconsciously, since this includes most human behavior. Remember, the authors of the Odyssey and the Old Testament were supposedly unconsious. Jaynes' hypothesis seems to me to have the clear implication that there are living peoples who go through their lives unconscious. Yet Jaynes offers no evidence that this is so, and it is pretty implausible. An anthropologist would be the best authority on this point, at any rate. Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
dave@hotlr.ATT ( C D Druitt hotlk) (01/12/89)
In article <1994@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> geb@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu (Gordon E. Banks) writes: > In article <440@aipna.ed.ac.uk> jeff@uk.ac.ed.aipna.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) writes: > >In article <1867@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> geb@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu (Gordon E. Banks) writes: > >>Now I know where that idea about language and consciousness > Well, I admit I haven't talked to the new age people or the Scientologists. > Who would you consider authorities on this subject? > >Disagreements on this subject are often due to different ideas about > >what "consciousness" means. Many people think animals are conscious, which > I agree he says some interesting things. I just didn't think his > evidence supports such a radical thesis. The "internal voice" aspect > of our consciousness is certainly one of the most easily noticed aspects > of it. One could, of course, define consciousness as that verbal > aspect of it. I would be hard put to consider deaf-mutes nonconscious, > or even Helen Keller before she learned to communicate. I would bet > that many of the great apes are conscious. They seem to display behavior > indicating they are. One of the interesting things that happened in the early 60's was controlled scientific research on LSD (standard disclaimer) in which subjects trained to observe and write their experiences were placed in completely white, bare rooms and given varying strong doses of LSD. There were enough similarities of experience to infer (rightly or wrongly) some common denominators and some stages. Without going into less-relevant details, one of the common denominators was the sensing of a "Watcher", analagous to a father figure, which seemed to observe all processes and input with a sense of care and concern. It seems difficult to draw conclusions based on the experiment indicating whther the "Watcher" was a "homunculus" type, whether it was real or imagined, whether it was one individual, a representative of a group, or a subset of another level of group, or what it's function was. It was, however, an interesting discovery in terms of the current trends in thinking that a group of simple-task oriented modules, working together with similar groups, can create a whole greater than the sum of the parts. What is the "consciousness" involved in individual vs. crowd psychology in, say, humans, or ants, or binary bit manipulations, or robots? Dave Druitt (the NODES) (201) 949-5898 (w)
staff_bob@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (01/12/89)
>In article <1867@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> geb@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu (Gordon E. Banks) writes: >>Now I know where that idea about language and consciousness >>evolving in the last 10000 years came from! Jaynes' thesis is >>considered quack by every anthropologist I have talked to. > >I'm not sure why you think anthropologists are the right people to ask. > >Disagreements on this subject are often due to different ideas about >what "consciousness" means. Many people think animals are conscious, which >seems rather unlikely given how much of our internal experience involves >language. I'm not sure what it means to say a rat is conscious. But >some people think consciousness is something rats might have, and they >would certainly disagree with Jaynes. But then I'd say they were talking >about different things. > >And, in any case, Jaynes says some interesting things about consciousness >that seem to be independent of his "bichameral mind" ideas. Have you ever noticed that psychologist, including Jaynes, tend to equate consciousness with the ability to speak? That is to say, if a subject has perceived a stimulus, or reacted to it, without being able to say that he perceived it or reacted to it, he is thought not to be conscious of it. This is manifest in Jaynes, who is at best a very sloppy academic, but who nonetheless raises many points which should not be overlooked. that fact is that by his own definition, consciousness cannot have existed before language, if only because it could not have been measured! One often hears the assertion that no matter what, we will never create a machine that is truly conscious, as we are. Certainly, we will never have to admit that one is. To date, there is no general concensus that any animal is consciously aware, and this is because that we cannot observe consciousness, except directly. DesCartes once 'proved' that animals were not conscious because they could not speak. What would he say now, that we have taught chimps to use sign language? I have observed my dogs making logical deductions, and yet I could not prove this to anyone, let alone to a skeptical philosoper. We shall never be able to demonstrate consciousness in a machine, the best we will be able to do is the best we've ever done. We can ask it, 'Are you conscious?' As I have said, I don't think much of Jayne's method, but the fact that establishment anthropologist consider him a quack speaks in his favor, as far as I'm concerned. It seems quite probable to me that in the last three thousand years mankind has been transformed from a right-brain dominated culture to a left-brain dominated culture. I'm not prepared to accept the bicameral hyposthesis, but I don't think that it should be rejected out of hand. In any case, it's clear that 3000 or so years ago, men started to write things down. They began to study mathematics. The march of reason through history has not been steady and consistent, but it is nonetheless clear that the rationality of mankind has progressed during that interval, at the expense of what may be characterized at right-brained ideals. So why all this in an AI discussion? I think that if we are going to understand intelligence, we need to delve more deeply into the nature and character of the irrational, illogical, non-symbolic, intuitive, superstitious mind, which is to say, the right half of the brain. It seems emminently likely that without reproducing this functionality, we could never pass the Turing test. Moreover, it seems clear from what little I have read of these discussions that there is little interest in these issues on the part of the AI community. Most AI researchers seem to believe that we can duplicate that functions of the mind through symbol processing, and that intelligence is in fact only that which is performed by the left hemisphere of the brain! The point about reductionism is well taken in the sense that most AI seems focused upon reproducing left-hemispheric processing, thereby ignoring at least half of what constitutes human intelligence. Logic, analysis, speech, and language are only part of the problem. I suppose that pattern matching and image identification are most properly right-brained functions, but it seems to me that in the main we *have* reduced the problem of intelligence too far. In this light, I would like to also comment on some of the proposed 'definitions' of intelligence. A definition is a rational, symbolic construct. It is a product of speech and the left hemisphere of the brain. As such, it may satisfy the needs of that hemisphere for a verbal catagorization of phenomena, but it can never capture the 'thing in itself' or essense of that which it describes, except in the case of so-called _a priori_ reason, since _a priori_ reason is itself a construct of the left hemisphere. In particular, defintions are ill suited to capturing the essense of the right brain and conveying that to the left brain. Since we have no reason not to expect that something of the right hemisphere should be included in what we think of as intelligence (certainly it must be so by the Turing test defintion), it follows that no definition will ever suffice. If this bothers you, recall that many very important constructs, such as 'truth', 'beauty' and 'justice' have defied definition for thousands of years. The search for a pleasant definition of intelligence is a vain effort to reduce a process to a concept.
bickel@nprdc.arpa (Steven Bickel) (01/12/89)
In article <2986@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) writes: > >Jaynes' hypothesis seems to me to have the clear implication that >there are living peoples who go through their lives unconscious. >Yet Jaynes offers no evidence that this is so, and it is pretty >implausible. An anthropologist would be the best authority on >this point, at any rate. > I believe Jaynes contends it is more like unconscious material that dominates consciousness. His bicameral mind means split into two distinct parts, conscious and unconscious ( as current psychological theories support). Language, thoughts etc. can become internalized and play significant roles in our conscious behavior. I believe one of Jaynes main points that the unconscious motivations are much more dominant components in individuals with less "ego" structure (conscious). In early humans people may have been literally hearing unconscious voices because the conscious structures were non-dominant. Steve Bickel
smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu (Stephen Smoliar) (01/13/89)
In article <1380@tank.uchicago.edu> staff_bob@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: > >One often hears the assertion that no matter what, we will never create >a machine that is truly conscious, as we are. Certainly, we will never >have to admit that one is. To date, there is no general concensus that >any animal is consciously aware, and this is because that we cannot >observe consciousness, except directly. DesCartes once 'proved' that >animals were not conscious because they could not speak. What would >he say now, that we have taught chimps to use sign language? I have >observed my dogs making logical deductions, and yet I could not prove >this to anyone, let alone to a skeptical philosoper. We shall never >be able to demonstrate consciousness in a machine, the best we will >be able to do is the best we've ever done. We can ask it, 'Are you >conscious?' > I think this might be a good point to recall some remarks by Marvin Minsky in THE SOCIETY OF MIND. (I tend to find Minsky a more credible writer than Jaynes. Perhaps this is because he can come up with better evidence than hallucinogenic introspection.) If we look up "consciouness" in the Glossary, we find the following passage: In this book, the word is used mainly for the myth that human minds are "self-aware" in the sense of perceiving what happens inside themselves. I maintain that human consciousness can never represent what is occurring at the present moment, but only a little of the recent past--partly because each agency has a limited capacity to represent what happened recently and partly because it takes time for agencies to communicate with one another. Consciousness is peculiarly hard to describe because each attempt to examine temporary memories distorts the very records it is trying to inspect. This entry has a "pointer" to Section 6.1, the first Section of the Chapter entitled "Insight and Introspection." In Section 6.8 of that Chapter, we find the following passage: Many people seem absolutely certain that no computer could ever be sentient, conscious, self-willed, or in any other way "aware" of itself. But what makeseveryone so sure that they themselves possess those admirable qualities? It's true that if we're sure of anything at all, it is that "I'M AWARE--HENCE I'M AWARE." Yet what do such convictions really mean? If self-awareness means to know what's happening inside one's mind, no realist could maintain for long that people have much insight, in the literal sense of seeing-in. Indeed, the evidence that we are self-aware--that is, that we have any special aptitude for finding out what's happening inside ourselves--is very weak indeed. It is true that certain people have a special excellence at assessing the attitudes and motivations of other persons (and, more rarely, of themselves). But this does not justify the belief that how we learn things about people, including ourselves, is fundamentally different from how we learn about other things. Most of the understandings we call "insights" are merely variants of our other ways to "figure out" what's happening.
bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Barry W. Kort) (01/13/89)
In article <1380@tank.uchicago.edu> staff_bob@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: > I think that if we are going to understand intelligence, > we need to delve more deeply into the nature and character > of the irrational, illogical, non-symbolic, intuitive, > superstitious mind, which is to say, the right half of the brain. I agree. Except that I would avoid pejorative labels like illogical or superstitious. I understand that new branches of formal logic are emerging around intuitionist and analogical reasoning. Inferential reasoning and theory construction are good examples of intelligent behavior (even if they are error-prone, as history suggests). Perhaps we can learn more about how the right hemisphere's parallel processor supports such modes of thinking as combinatorial reasoning (brain teasers), intuition, analogy, inference, and theory construction. With greater understanding of these forms of information processing, we can achieve two worthwhile objectives: First, we can imbue silicon information processors with these abilities. And more importantly, we can learn how to refine and improve these faculties in our own carbon-based neural networks. I, for one, would love to clean up my inefficient and erratic right-hemisphere and install some decent code. --Barry Kort
bickel@nprdc.arpa (Steven Bickel) (01/15/89)
In article <43583@linus.UUCP> bwk@mbunix (Kort) writes: > >I, for one, would love to clean up my inefficient and erratic >right-hemisphere and install some decent code. > Read _Software For The Mind_ by Emmett E. Miller M.D., Celestial Arts, Berkely California, 1987. A very good self hypnosis type book that primarily addresses stress reduction and psychosomatic illness. I use these techniques to solve analysis and design related problems at an increasing rate and have found the techniques indispensible. :-) These types of "skills" have increasingly "crept" into my conscious processing mode and I now seem to solve almost all "hard" problems following hunches that inevitably lead to "I found it!". It has almost become predictable. A theory I recently heard is that *all* problem solving may be performed by "right brain reasoning" and that the linguistic components simply act as an interpreter that is continuously attempting to describe the "intuitive patterns". Another way of describing it: Stored data is analyzed using correlative reasoning. An interpreter looks for the trends (symbols and relations) and constructs formalized languages. Steve Bickel
feit@sunybcs.uucp (Elissa Feit) (01/18/89)
In article <1320@arctic.nprdc.arpa> bickel@nprdc.arpa (Steven Bickel) writes: ... > I believe Jaynes contends it is more like unconscious material that > dominates consciousness. His bicameral mind means split into two > distinct parts, conscious and unconscious ( as current psychological > theories support). Language, thoughts etc. can become internalized > and play significant roles in our conscious behavior.... >Steve Bickel Jaynes was referring to a two-chambered brain, literally the left and right hemispheres. His theory was, until further evolution of the corpus callosum (which he supposed to have happened, oh, after _The Odyssey_, but before completion of _The Iliad_) early man "heard" voices from his right hemisphere, and interpreted these to be the voices of gods. Elissa Feit (feit@cs.buffalo.edu feit@sunybcs.bitnet)
smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu (Stephen Smoliar) (01/18/89)
In article <43583@linus.UUCP> bwk@mbunix (Kort) writes: > >I, for one, would love to clean up my inefficient and erratic >right-hemisphere and install some decent code. > This reminds me of a remark from a letter (74) by Rilke expressing his reaction to the goals of psychotherapy: "If my devils are to leave me, I am afraid my angels will take flight as well." Granting that you HAVE the sort of right hemisphere you want to "clean up" (and I tend to agree with Minsky that one should be suspicious of such brain division), what makes you think cleaning it up will improve its performance? One of the nice things about THE SOCIETY OF MIND is the way it makes cases for the necessity of indirect connections among the agents, as opposed to the more direct links one might find in an efficient and reliable dataflow network. That architecture may be "inefficient and erratic;" but it's robust! How many pieces of efficient and robust hardware do you know?
bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Barry W. Kort) (01/21/89)
In article <7301@venera.isi.edu> smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu.UUCP (Stephen Smoliar) gently chides me for being disatisfied with with my right brain. Stephen writes: >In article <43583@linus.UUCP> bwk@mbunix (Barry Kort) writes: >> >>I, for one, would love to clean up my inefficient and erratic >>right-hemisphere and install some decent code. >> >This reminds me of a remark from a letter (74) by Rilke expressing his >reaction to the goals of psychotherapy: "If my devils are to leave me, >I am afraid my angels will take flight as well." Granting that you HAVE >the sort of right hemisphere you want to "clean up" (and I tend to agree >with Minsky that one should be suspicious of such brain division), what >makes you think cleaning it up will improve its performance? One of the >nice things about THE SOCIETY OF MIND is the way it makes cases for the >necessity of indirect connections among the agents, as opposed to the more >direct links one might find in an efficient and reliable dataflow network. >That architecture may be "inefficient and erratic;" but it's robust! How >many pieces of efficient and robust hardware do you know? My suspicion that there is room for improvement comes from the observation that most of the decent code in my left hemisphere was stolen from von Neumann architectures. (I admit it. It was my computer who, more than anyone, taught me how to think.) I am looking forward to making friends with the new class of parallel architectures. I am hoping they have some good ideas on how to implement combinatorial logic, intuitionist logic, and theory construction. As to efficient and robust hardware, I nominate the now defunct Bell System Telecommunications Network and the Northeast Power Grid, which hasn't crashed since 1967. (Internet should be so solid.) --Barry Kort
smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu (Stephen Smoliar) (01/23/89)
In article <43767@linus.UUCP> bwk@mbunix (Barry Kort) writes: >In article <7301@venera.isi.edu> smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu.UUCP >(Stephen Smoliar) gently chides me for being disatisfied with >with my right brain. Stephen writes: > >>In article <43583@linus.UUCP> bwk@mbunix (Barry Kort) writes: >>> >>>I, for one, would love to clean up my inefficient and erratic >>>right-hemisphere and install some decent code. >>> >>This reminds me of a remark from a letter (74) by Rilke expressing his >>reaction to the goals of psychotherapy: "If my devils are to leave me, >>I am afraid my angels will take flight as well." Granting that you HAVE >>the sort of right hemisphere you want to "clean up" (and I tend to agree >>with Minsky that one should be suspicious of such brain division), what >>makes you think cleaning it up will improve its performance? One of the >>nice things about THE SOCIETY OF MIND is the way it makes cases for the >>necessity of indirect connections among the agents, as opposed to the more >>direct links one might find in an efficient and reliable dataflow network. >>That architecture may be "inefficient and erratic;" but it's robust! How >>many pieces of efficient and robust hardware do you know? > >My suspicion that there is room for improvement comes from the >observation that most of the decent code in my left hemisphere >was stolen from von Neumann architectures. (I admit it. It was >my computer who, more than anyone, taught me how to think.) >I am looking forward to making friends with the new class of >parallel architectures. I am hoping they have some good ideas >on how to implement combinatorial logic, intuitionist logic, and >theory construction. > There is, of course, the possibility that your "friendship" may only further enhance your left hemisphere! Certainly, anything along the lines of "study" of such archiectures would seem to have more to do with the left than the right. Probably the only way in which the right hemisphere could "get involved" would be through your accumulating concrete experiences with such archiectures. On the one hand, your left hemisphere would benefit from your learning how to achieve your objectives with new equipment, while, perhaps, your right would, in some way or another, assimilate the new experiences of using that equipment. Nevertheless, I would still question whether or not those experiences would have anything to do with "cleaning things up." More likely, they would just add a bit more metaphorical spice to an already savory stew. >As to efficient and robust hardware, I nominate the now defunct >Bell System Telecommunications Network and the Northeast Power >Grid, which hasn't crashed since 1967. (Internet should be so solid.) > I don't know if I would call these systems efficient. They certainly meet demanding performance requirements, but their robustness makes their performance far from optimal. We sometimes forget the occasions when we have dialed a number and nothing happens; this is because, out of relfex, we know to simply hang up and try again. Clearly, the system has failed us; but it is robust enough that the failure is not catastrophic. Furthermore, the failure is small enough that we can live with it. Power surges are a similar example of sub-optimal performance. All we can ever expect of robust systems is that they be "good enough" (Simon's "satisficing"); similarly, all you may be able to expect of your right hemisphere is that it does what it does.
bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Barry W. Kort) (01/25/89)
Stephen Smoliar expresses some doubt that an exploration of parallel processing architectures and software will yield a net reduction in entropy in my largely uncultivated right hemisphere. But he does allow that a romp with the connection machine "would just add a bit more metaphorical spice to an already savory stew." I appreciate your comments, Stephen. We seem to have competing theories as to the salutary effects of downloading some new mindware for the right brain. Being the good scientist that I profess to be, it would appear that that an experiment is called for here to test our competing theories. What lies behind the door? Is it the Lady, with treasures and pleasures unimagined? Or is it the Tiger, slavering to dine on a spicy metaphorical stew? So, in the honored tradition of experiential learning, let me open the door and discover the outcome to this mystery. Stay tuned to this newsgroup for further developments.... --Barry Kort