gls@odyssey.ATT.COM (g.l.sicherman) (10/14/87)
> Let's draw an analogy. You are driving an X-Brand car from Pittsburgh to > Atlanta and halfway there it bursts into flame. Without knowing how the > car works you can conclude it was flawed. > > Mr X. goes to an employment interview and gets angry or flustered and > says something that causes him to be rejected. Without knowing how his > mind works you can conclude it was flawed. And you could be wrong. Most likely Mr. X. didn't want the job after all. He only wanted you to think he wanted the job. Give him credit for some intelligence! Of course Mr. X. is flawed from the company's point of view. But he's flawed from his own point of view only if he can get what he wants and doesn't. When this happens, the problem is not emotions but habits. > Factually, we know the mind is flawed because we observe that it does > not do what we expect of it. By this criterion, we are all flawed. It brings to mind the one and only law in J. B. Cabell's land of Philistia: "Do what seems to be expected of you." -- Col. G. L. Sicherman ...!ihnp4!odyssey!gls
marty1@houdi.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) (10/15/87)
In article <331@odyssey.ATT.COM>, gls@odyssey.ATT.COM (g.l.sicherman) writes (quoting from something I wrote): > > Let's draw an analogy. You are driving an X-Brand car from Pittsburgh to > > Atlanta and halfway there it bursts into flame. Without knowing how the > > car works you can conclude it was flawed. > > > > Mr X. goes to an employment interview and gets angry or flustered and > > says something that causes him to be rejected. Without knowing how his > > mind works you can conclude it was flawed. > > And you could be wrong. Most likely Mr. X. didn't want the job after > all. He only wanted you to think he wanted the job. Give him credit > for some intelligence! > > Of course Mr. X. is flawed from the company's point of view. But he's > flawed from his own point of view only if he can get what he wants and > doesn't. When this happens, the problem is not emotions but habits. Also flawed from Mr. X's point of view. Sicherman argues that X only seemed to get angry or flustered, in order to make sure the company didn't make him an offer, because during the interview he decided he didn't want a job with them. If I attributed Mr. X's actions to intelligence I would expect him to conclude gracefully, let them make an offer, and reject the offer, without making a bad impression on somebody who later might be in a position to offer him a job in another company. And I don't care whether you blame emotions or habits. > > Factually, we know the mind is flawed because we observe that it does > > not do what we expect of it. > > By this criterion, we are all flawed.... That's exactly what I meant. M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201)-949-1858 Holmdel, NJ 07733 ihnp4!houdi!marty1
tony_mak_makonnen@cup.portal.com (10/17/87)
There is strange and profound truth to the following statements
All the universe is the brain
All you know is the mind
The second statement is more daring than the first . It is necessitated
by the need to posit something that is more than the physical parts
of brain . Assume a completely isolated , closed system capable of
reflection . I submit that such a thinking thing could not posit a
essential flaw in its make up .We see here many individual manifestations
of mind talking about flaws that one can only assume must be attributed to the
brain .What is that which stands back and reflects
on the flawed function
of that very instrument without which it would be a "null"in this universe ?
Can we call it "I" or "mind" . But then some seem to posit other "I"s than can
stand back and look at the first "Iand so on . Very confusing once we leave
the safety of behavioral psych . What seems to the morale at this point ?
Accept the obvious fact that the brain is not very efficient at calculative
functions , and the equally true fact that it is capable of creating machines
That can do that much better . Forget about the other abstract stuff .
This mind knows the limts of some brain functions and compensates for
them . It has so far proved adequate for the primary directive "the
survival of the species and life " . I submit to the members of this
jury that we cannot yet say that it is flawed . However should we
reach the ultimate folly of self destruction then only the absence of
an audience and judge will prevent a definitive verdict .dc@gcm (Dave Caswell) (10/19/87)
>> Factually, we know the mind is flawed because we observe that it does >> not do what we expect of it. > Factually, the mind knows the mind is flawed because the mind observes the mind not doing what the mind expects the mind to do.
bryan@seradg.Dayton.NCR.COM (Bryan Klopfenstein) (10/20/87)
In article <359@white.gcm> dc@white.UUCP (Dave Caswell) writes: >>> Factually, we know the mind is flawed because we observe that it does >>> not do what we expect of it. >> >Factually, the mind knows the mind is flawed because the mind observes the >mind not doing what the mind expects the mind to do. So, is the mind flawed because it expects the wrong thing, or is the mind flawed because it observes incorrectly, or is the mind flawed because it does not live up to its expectations? Or is this a ridiculous question and a flawed mind does not have the capability to evaluate itself, thus making it unable to determine whether or not is really is flawed? -- Bryan Klopfenstein CSNET bryan@seradg.Dayton.NCR.COM NCR Corporation ARPA bryan%seradg.Dayton.NCR.COM@relay.cs.net VOICE (513) 865-8080 -- Standard Disclaimer Applies --