Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA09288 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 7 Jun 2000 16:02:59 +0100 Message-ID: <393E1D69.888CA2A9@mediaone.net> Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 11:01:14 +0100 From: Chuck <cpalson@mediaone.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Fwd: The Scientist in the Crib: Minds, Brains, and How Children Learn References: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIMEGMCGAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
I'm not sure I entirely agree with the type of comparison you are making in the
loom example. It would probably help to know exactly what people were comparing
back in those days. But whatever the case, it sounds like in general you have
put your finger on what I suspected was there: people did not just blindly latch
on to the latest technology, stupidly assuming that it must be how the mind
works. Rather, there is a sense in which each invention did help us to
understand a bit more of how the mind actually works. Thanks for the comparison.
Chris Lofting wrote:
> Chuck,
>
> it is not so much the NAME/discipline but more the BEHAVIOUR. Looms lead us
> to the warp/weft dichotomy and it IS applicable when we view neurons (warp)
> and neurotransmitters/neuromodulators (weft). The patterns that emerge from
> these processes express 'meaning' where the axon behaviour expresses
> discrete concepts (objects) and the dendrites express continuous concepts
> (relationships, feedback processes) and the neurochemistry enables the
> transmission and generalisation of these concepts. The entanglement of these
> processes (e.g. axons working as synchronisation tools when connected to the
> neuron's body) leads to more refined processing.
>
> The telephony metaphor took the highly passive, mechanistic process of looms
> and added some dynamics including some degree of intent/self-government
> within the system. Computers take this further with the emphasis on AI
> systems etc.
>
> The telephony metaphor leads into the computer metaphor and so on where we
> move from a mechanistic, reactive biased concept requiring external forces
> to determine the algorithm/formula to a more electro-magnetic, proactive
> biased concept where algorithms/formulas can be determined within the system
> independent of external forces.
>
> The loom-telephone-computers development path manifests evolutionary
> processes where we move from object-context opposition (initial evolutionary
> processes where context is the sole determinant of object survival) to
> object-context cooperation where the entanglement is so strong that it is
> hard to imagine seperation and, without knowledge of such systems, we see
> some sort of teleological element present. (This 'flow' reflects the
> dimension of evolution with Darwin at one end and Lamarck at the other in
> that both Darwin and Lamarck reflect discrete perspectives of a continuum at
> work. Lamarck's 'confusion' was in his determination that his model reflects
> initial conditions; it does not, it reflects entanglement, highly advanced
> development and so cuts out a LOT of earlier processes.)
>
> In the movement along the evolution dimension there is an ever increasing
> utilisation of feedback processes where once the object can survive the
> initial conditions so relational processes dominate to lead to the
> intergration of object and context. At the current level, with AI systems,
> we are getting into feedforward/feedback processes that allow for
> self-determination, there is a more proactive emphasis such that the
> intergration of computers with humans will eventually lead to a 'egg or
> chicken?' perspective (unless we maintain good historical records! We are
> Borg?)
>
> Relational processes in technology reflect relational processes in us where
> we wish to refine these processes through extending sensory detection (e.g.
> ultrasound, infra-red, ultra-violet light etc) and so when a technology
> dominates the relational processes are identical to previous technologies
> but with better resolution.
>
> I think when people say "mind is like a computer" they are reflecting their
> own fears or lack of self-worth, it is computers that 'try' to be like the
> mind not the other way around.
>
> best,
>
> Chris.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> > Of Chuck
> > Sent: Tuesday, 6 June 2000 8:06
> > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > Subject: Re: Fwd: The Scientist in the Crib: Minds, Brains, and How
> > Children Learn
> >
> >
> > Wade - First - thanx a lot for sending this. We need more reviews
> > like this
> > on this list. I just hope I get around to reading the original!
> >
> > Second, I wonder if you or anyone else out there has an idea on the
> > following. One of the common ways to denigrate the notion that
> > the mind is a
> > biological computer is by pointing out that the mind has been
> > compared to the
> > prevailing technology of the day. The implication is that this is just
> > another fad that will pass as another technology comes on line.
> >
> > I would like to propose that each one was not merely a fad, but actually a
> > better approximation of the mind. Pinker says that computers are
> > based on the
> > principle that a thingamabob must be able to sense dimensions of events
> > outside itself and register these through a change in its physical nature.
> > Computers are made up of these thingamabobs -- just like brains
> > are. We call
> > them neurons in the brain.
> >
> > I don't have time to think this through and do whatever research is
> > necessary, but I wonder to what extent we might say that looms and early
> > telephones have elements of these properties - or at least suggestions of
> > these elements?
> >
> >
> > "Wade T.Smith" wrote:
> >
> > > The Scientist in the Crib: Minds, Brains, and How Children Learn
> > >
> > > by Alison Gopnik, Andrew Meltzoff, and Patricia Kuhl
> > >
> > > Reviewed by Sibylle Hechtel
> >
> >
> > ===============================================================
> > This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> > Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> > For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> > see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
> >
> >
>
> ===============================================================
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 07 2000 - 16:03:35 BST