h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm in way over my head....

A higher level emergent property/concept/structure is what I intended to introduce to this discussion. I don't think they only arise when there is a paradigm shift; but I have to agree that there is sometimes too much attention paid to rearrangements of the deckchairs on the Titanic.

I shall have to remember your "semantic in relation to the laws of nature". Even though perhaps "syntactic in relation to our knowledge of those laws". Its a good way of putting a distinction that I already like to make.

Yo Friendly. I'll deal with it in small chunks if Nog will forgive me. He seems to mention the fact that all those cells can make a brain, but they can also make brain cell soup (delicious )! It is at a relatively high level of organisation that the difference is apparent. Brain cell soup might have a relationship with a recipe in a book if it is cooked accordingly (syntactically), but a thinking brain had a meaningful (semantic) relationship with the actual higher-level aspects of the world.

I hope Noggin will correct me if he would wish to put the above very differently.

Thanks: I only know what I know...which is limited!

You can be in worse places than here if, like me, you're still learning.

<quote>
In Berkeley's phenomenalism, real physical objects are nothing other than the ideas or collections of sense data that are experienced by minds.
Kant claims that our knowledge about things in the world depends on how the mind structures experience.

When it comes to physical reality a tree is a tree is a tree but when it comes to perception - how an anorexic sees their body - why you like some music and hate others - why some people have dress sense etc. then it's all in the mind.

Alji (Member of The Guild of Wizards @ U197895)

So when I feel the rough surface and flexibility etc of a piece of sandpaper, there is nothing to this but sense data; no sandpaper, no roughness? And the fact that these particular data appear to occur only when I appear to handle a certain apparent ..... all that is just illusion unrelated to anything external to me?

Oh yep, could you say where the quote is from?

I don't know where Alji's quote is specifically from, but it's a fair representation of those philosophers' views.
Kant's forms are a kind of syntax for the semantics of the data received from the environment, but the semantics only emerges AS a semantics in the context of the syntax. (In the same way that a string of words jumbled together ungrammatically doesn't make a meaningful sentence.)In a heirarchy of levels the intermediate levels "point both ways", being semantic in relation to lower levels, syntactical in relation to higher levels. This is why reductionism (the explanation of semantics by means of lower level syntax) is always possible in theory, but only helpful in modest doses.
High level systems run on the logical possibilities provided by the level below.
Does that sound about right?

Noggin

As a cognitive scientist I'm also interested in how the brain implements these functions. The stuff about 'grandmother cells' or 'yellow Volkswagen receptor cells' is fascinating stuff. There's a piece here that discusses these matters in your terms - mentioning Kant himself. Here's the link: http://www.perceptionweb.com/perc0896/editorial.html

Test Questions: Epistemology II: Empiricism, Kant, Positivism, and Objections @ http://www-phil.tamu.edu/~sdaniel/quest3.html


Alji (Member of The Guild of Wizards @ U197895)

Looking again at your three examples, Alji; I note that they aren't pure cognition but have an affective component - mostly to do with dislikes! Consequently, they can be regarded as introducing the observer's mind in order to determine whether what is seen and heard, is liked. Somehow, I don't think that is what you want to say.

What is pure cognition? Can you separate prejudice (likes, dislikes)from your perception.

cognition - the psychological result of perception and learning and reasoning.

An anorexic girl sees herself as fat though it is obvious to you, she is not.

In post 113 I asked you to look at a web site about Indian time cycles and astronomy but what you saw were mysticism, incarnations, gods and demons.

Alji (Member of The Guild of Wizards @ U197895)

Hi Alji. Where did you find that definition of cognition, or did you knit it yourself? Cognition just IS perception, learning, reasoning and some other things like remembering. The word describes these activities, not their results. For example, learning is a cognitive process which results in a relatively permanent change in behaviour. The change in behaviour is not a part of cognition though!

Sure, I perceived those words in that site except for 'mysticism' which is a fair summary of what area 'incarnations', 'gods' and 'demons' fall into. They are actually there and, yes, I guess they were of more interest than the purely historical stuff, to a non-historian.

http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=cognition

The best dictionary on the web.

Alji (Member of The Guild of Wizards @ U197895)

Conceptually we can separate pure cognition from perception as influenced by affect and conation (as they usually are). Kant could therefore write about 'pure reason'. There is so much more going on in the case of the anorexic than cognition. In fact, getting the anorexic to focus more on cognition alone can be therapeutic; which is how cognitive therapy works.

Dictionary.com is the only one I have bookmarked as it happens. However, the word 'psychological' in that definition renders it kinda circular (see dictionary.com definition of it ).

Oddly enough I'm currently reading Damasio. Very interesting.
Equally oddly, for a Kantian, I don't think there are any innate "concepts", in the sense of what the mind knows rather than what the brain does. But the brain must be wired to do SOMETHING with its inputs or nothing happens. I'm not really convinced by grandmother cells, and still less by yellow volkswagen cells, but the question of HOW the brain represents is tricky. And if it's tricky for visual perception, how do we cope with linguistic representation, which is often of abstracts and intangibles?
Damasio suggests that what the brain needs to do for immediate survival is pretty much hard wired, and what's learnt is built onto these, which is close to what I was thinking of in terms of syntax and semantics.

Noggin


Do you do cognitive science for a living Toxx? If so, what and where?
And can you get me a job when the Post Office goes bust and I'm unemployed?

Oops, sorry Nog . I missed this message and kinda gave up. I have a PhD in cognitive science but I've only done some part-time teaching at uni and now I'm kinda retired sick. My thesis concerned the linguistic factors involved in 'reasoning' (note scare quotes!). My guru when it comes to representations is Phil Johnson-Laird who was my external supervisor.

I should also apologise for the jargon, grandmother cells and yellow Volkswagen cells are pretty much the same thing. But I've already strayed too much from pure reason. Still, since you maintain the topic, the literature on unconscious perception solves many philosophical problems (for me anyway). The phenomenon of blindsight and the functioning of the superior colluculus is fascinating. The fact that the frog's eyes are pretty well hardwired to its tongue via a moving-dot-of-a-certain-size detector gives us pause for thought. I have known those who think, on the basis of such considerations, that consciousness is a mere epiphenomenon.

More about syntax, Nog. I gave up on Chomsky when it occurred to me that his 'deep structure' isn't syntactical at all, but just another term for semantics. Analysing semantics in a syntactical way seems to me be wrong-headed. This is also one of the very few areas where I disagree with Phil Johnson-Laird (mentioned previously). He appears at least to accept that I have a point.

I must have an awful nerve to disagree with two such distinguished academics. Still, there ya go, I hafta tell it like I see it

[gibbering in a corner]

Just to let you know I'm still here

Like the Buddha said, 'Don't believe anything you are told, read or see untill you prove it for yourself'.

Alji (Join The Guild of Wizards @ U197895)