coberst

It appears to me that CS has two paradigms, symbol manipulation (AI), and conceptual metaphor. When I speak of CS here I am speaking of the conceptual metaphor paradigm. Cognitive science has radically attacked the traditional Western philosophical position that there is a dichotomy between perception and conception. This traditional view that perception is strictly a faculty of body and conception (the formation and use of concepts) is purely mental and wholly separate from and independent of our ability to perceive and move. Cognitive science has introduced revolutionary theories that, if true, will change dramatically the views of Western philosophy. Advocates of the traditional view will, of course, “say that conceptual structure must have a neural realization in the brain, which just happens to reside in a body. But they deny that anything about the body is essential for characterizing what concepts are.” The cognitive science claim is that ”the very properties of concepts are created as a result of the way the brain and body are structured and the way they function in interpersonal relations and in the physical world.” The embodied-mind hypothesis therefore radically undercuts the perception/conception distinction. In an embodied mind, it is conceivable that the same neural system engaged in perception (or in bodily movements) plays a central role in conception. Indeed, in recent neural modeling research, models of perceptual mechanisms and motor schemas can actually do conception work in language learning and in reasoning. A standard technique for checking out new ideas is to create computer models of the idea and subject that model to simulated conditions to determine if the model behaves as does the reality. Such modeling techniques are used constantly in projecting behavior of meteorological parameters. Neural computer models have shown that the types of operations required to perceive and move in space require the very same type of capability associated with reasoning. That is, neural models capable of doing all of the things that a body must be able to do when perceiving and moving can also perform the same kinds of actions associated with reasoning, i.e. inferring, categorizing, and conceiving. Our understanding of biology indicates that the body has a marvelous ability to do as any handyman does, i.e. make do with what is at hand. The body would, it seems logical to assume, take these abilities that exist in all creatures that move and survive in space and with such fundamental capabilities reshape it through evolution to become what we now know as our ability to reason. The first budding of the reasoning ability exists in all creatures that function as perceiving, moving, surviving, creatures. Cognitive science has, it seems to me, connected our ability to reason with our bodies in such away as to make sense out of connecting reason with our biological evolution in ways that Western philosophy has not done, as far as I know. It seems to me that Western philosophical tradition as always tried to separate mind from body and in so doing has never been able to show how mind, as was conceived by this tradition, could be part of Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Cognitive science now provides us with a comprehensible model for grounding all that we are both bodily and mentally into a unified whole that makes sense without all of the attempts to make mind as some kind of transcendent, mystical, reality unassociated with biology. Quotes from “Philosophy in the Flesh”

I think that those statements about programmed reflective actions by animals are beyond belief.

What leads you to make those conclusions? Have you read about such things or have you generated these conclusions without outside help?

That is a strange request. Do you want me to show you some data sheets with distance and time shown. What qualifies as data in this matter and why must I show data for you to recognize what is and is not a valid empirical science? Your movement of this thread to this location is an insult. I think that you should move it back or move it to the philosophy forum.

Cognitive science is not speculation. It is an emperical science. If you had read the post before you moved it you might have recognized this fact.

Look, do you have time on YOUR hands? How does cognitive science, as constructed by the embodied realists, look at ‘time’? Cognitive science examines concepts as they come ready-made from the unconscious. Language expresses our ready-made concept of time and with this the cognitive scientists constructs the mechanisms and the human experiences that have gone into the development of this living concept. I call it a living concept because some experience I have later today might very well modify it somewhat without my conscious awareness. As Rumsfeld might say ‘we take the concept we have and not the concept we might wish to have’. Events and time: oscillating pendulums mark time—drummers mark time—subatomic particles mark time—time marches forward—time does not march backward—time is continuous and also segmented—time is never alone but is often marked by an event. Spatial time: is that central time or GM time?—time is located with reference to the observer, it is behind, in front of, in the present, past or future—there is moving time that comes toward me or away from me—time is never alone but is often marked in spatial terms. Time flows like a river. Time stands still and the observer moves. The observer stands still while time moves. There is trouble down the road. What length of time will you be staying? We are coming up to Christmas. We passed the deadline. The days dwindle down to a precious few. The deadline sneaked by me. The future is ahead of us. Put the past behind you. Time is never alone but is often marked by my presence. All this time orientation occurs in many languages and occurs widely around the world; these conceptions of time are not arbitrary, but are motivated by “by the most basic of everyday experiences”. Time is conceived with metaphors. We do not speak of time-in-it-self we think of time in metaphor. In many metaphors, time is conceived as a container. “He ran a mile in five minutes”, in locates the event within a metaphorical temporal container, i.e. a bounded region. “The race occurred at 10 A.M.”, locates time at a temporal location. Our subjective life is enormous. We have subjective experiences of desire, affection, and achievement. We make subjective judgments about abstract ideas such as importance, difficulty, and morality. Much of what makes up our conceptualization, reasoning, and visualization of these subjective matters “comes from other domains of experience”. These other domains are mostly sensorimotor experiences. Within the human unconscious there is a constant copying of the neurological structure of actual experiences onto subjective concepts. In other words, below the conscious radar our unconscious is selecting copies of the neurological structures from real life experiences and placing those copies onto subjective concepts. Our concept of time is an accumulation of the neurological structures of real experiences; thus we have such a varied and sometimes contradictory comprehension of many subjective abstract concepts such as we see with ‘time’. Can we conceptualize ‘time’ without using metaphors? I cannot, it appears that no one can. Time is a human conceptualization. Is there a literal aspect of time? Yes, time is directional, it is irreversible, time-defining events are regular and iterative. But we can hardly think or speak of time without metaphor. This is the case because we invent the concept of time unconsciously by our experiences as we move through space and time in our daily activities. Many of our concepts are just like this concept of time. Our subjective concepts, our abstract concepts, such as value, causality, change, love, nation, patriotism, God or gods, etc. are all human constructions that happen below the conscious radar and exist because our unconscious activity creates them. Ideas and some quotes from “Philosophy in the Flesh”—Lakoff and Johnson

If such is true does that not mean that all animals and all humans could not move or perceive until they had developed a neocortex?

I am not aware of the difference. The books that I read always use the word 'unconscious' and I have never seen the cognitive science books I have read use the word 'subconscious'. After looking at the dictionary I would have chosen to use the word 'subconscious' in this situation. However, it appears to me that the cognitive sciences have chosen to use the word 'unconscious' as their technical word for what the dictionary would be 'subconscious'. I have been reading a number of books that use unconscious in this way so it appears to me that they have ignored the dictionary definition.

Unconscious thought forms 95% of all thought In the 1970s a new body of empirical research began to introduce findings that questioned the traditional Anglo-American cognitive paradigm of AI (Artificial Intelligence), i.e. symbol manipulation. This research indicates that the neurological structures associated with sensorimotor activity are mapped directly to the higher cortical brain structures to form the foundation for subjective conceptualization in the human brain. In other words, our abstract ideas are constructed with copies of sensorimotor neurological structures as a foundation. “It is the rule of thumb among cognitive scientists that unconscious thought is 95 percent of all thought—and that may be a serious underestimate.” Categorization, the first level of abstraction from “Reality” is our first level of conceptualization and thus of knowing. Seeing is a process that includes categorization, we see something as an interaction between the seer and what is seen. “Seeing typically involves categorization.” Our categories are what we consider to be real in the world: tree, rock, animal…Our concepts are what we use to structure our reasoning about these categories. Concepts are neural structures that are the fundamental means by which we reason about categories. Human categories, the stuff of experience, are reasoned about in many different ways. These differing ways of reasoning, these different conceptualizations, are called prototypes and represent the second level of conceptualization Typical-case prototype conceptualization modes are “used in drawing inferences about category members in the absence of any special contextual information. Ideal-case prototypes allow us to evaluate category members relative to some conceptual standard…Social stereotypes are used to make snap judgments…Salient exemplars (well-known examples) are used for making probability judgments…Reasoning with prototypes is, indeed, so common that it is inconceivable that we could function for long without them.” When we conceptualize categories in this fashion we often envision them using spatial metaphors. Spatial relation metaphors form the heart of our ability to perceive, conceive, and to move about in space. We unconsciously form spatial relation contexts for entities: ‘in’, ‘on’, ‘about’, ‘across from’ some other entity are common relationships that make it possible for us to function in our normal manner. When we perceive a black cat and do not wish to cross its path our imagination conceives container shapes such that we do not penetrate the container space occupied by the cat at some time in its journey. We function in space and the container schema is a normal means we have for reasoning about action in space. Such imaginings are not conscious but most of our perception and conception is an automatic unconscious force for functioning in the world. Our manner of using language to explain experience provides us with an insight into our cognitive structuring process. Perceptual cues are mapped onto cognitive spaces wherein a representation of the experience is structured onto our spatial-relation contour. There is no direct connection between perception and language. The claim of cognitive science is “that the very properties of concepts are created as a result of the way the brain and the body are structured and the way they function in interpersonal relations and in the physical world.” Quotes from “Philosophy in the Flesh” by Lakoff and Johnson Questions for discussion Is all of this of any importance for ‘the man on the street’? I think so because if we comprehend these fundamental facts about human perception and motor movement we will better comprehend why we do the things we do. We live our lives by our abstract ideas, i.e. morality, flag, nation, patriotism, value, motive, good, right, fairness, etc. Do you think it is important for ‘the man on the street’ to comprehend how concepts are made?

Glider As I mentioned in my OP the book "Philosophy in the Flesh" is my source of information for my claims regarding the neural structure of concepts. Psychoanalysis started by Freud in an effort to find ways to help people suffering from psychic illness. Medication has become a more effective means for alleviating these problems and psychoanalysis now finds its primary value in helping us uncover the mysteries of human nature.

The consequences can be insignificant or they can be catistrophic. If our political leaders try empathy with our 'enemies' and fail the results can be terrible, like a war. Of course, our leaders are of such poor quality I suspect thay never even thought of trying empathy. It is obvious they knew nothing about our 'enemy' before they started bombing. The same judgment goes for our (US) war in Vietnam.

Empathy is a means for comprehending why others do the things they do. Empathy is a very important action for us all if we wish to learn to live together in harmony. It does not always work but it needs to be tried for the sake of harmony.

Try empathy. I find it easy to imagine what an artist might feel when I have an experience of understanding. Someone said “every work of art is a crystallized value judgment” I think the same thing applies to the act of understanding. Bloch observed "the artist chooses the media and the goal of every artist is to become fluent enough with the media to transcend it. At some point you pass from playing the piano to playing music."

Making meaningful connections I have, in the last 24 months, been studying two disparate sciences, which have ‘magically joined-hands’ for me in a meaningful way. I have been studying cognitive science by Lakoff & Johnson, and psychoanalysis by Becker. Psychoanalysis uses the unconscious as an instrument for therapy and for comprehending the nature of our species. Cognitive science provides us with empirically based scientific theories that illuminate how the unconscious manages to be such a dominant factor in human behavior. These sciences represent, for me (perhaps not for you because they may be interested knowledge to you), what I call disinterested knowledge; I study them, not because there is money-in-it, but because I wish to understand what they can mean to me. As separate sciences they have become meaningful but it is in their confluence that I have found each to enrich the other and together to form a meaningful and satisfying experience. I have found reason to believe that this experience of connection might correctly be called an artistic experience. We do not need an exceptional talent to ‘do art’; we all can practice the art form just with our ordinary talents. Cognitive science informs me as to how our earliest, common, every-day type of experiences becomes an integral part of our complex abstract ideas and our symbolically driven sense of reality. Our neural structures that result from many of our experiences, especially our very earliest experiences as infants, become an integrated part of later neurological structures of abstract concepts that we develop throughout our life. One might think of these ‘primary experiences’ as forming a kind of herbal seasoning that ‘season’ the abstract concepts we develop constantly in life. These early cognitive structures, these early neural structures resulting from first experiences, these early ideas formed by experience become ‘primary metaphors’. These neural structures season many of our abstract ideas that we create later in life because these structures act like metaphors for later abstract ideas. Our unconscious maps (transfers the structure) copies of these primary metaphors onto subjective ideas and thus these later subjective ideas have copies of primary experiences as permanent parts of these subjective abstract ideas. Becker informs me that the child begins the process of becoming “human by forfeiting the aegis over his powers” first to the mother and then to society as s/he matures. The subjective concept we call conscience forms into each child by the child’s need for affection and anxiety over abandonment. The child’s natural animal instincts are placed on hold in order that s/he might fit parental demand. The child’s instincts, established in its primate body, give ground to the symbolic social fictions of the parents and to society in general. S/he strives for meaning without the aid of an enlightened consciousness. This meaning becomes part of the embedded subjective concepts later constructed with the primary metaphors as part of the structure. In a nutshell, I have learned that the neurological structures created in the very earliest experiences of a child become deeply and physically embedded into the neurological structure of subjective concepts of the adult throughout that individual’s life. These are difficult to understand concepts that demand study; and if you are interested in reading more about such matters you can find them in “Philosophy in the Flesh” by Lakoff and Johnson and in “The Ernest Becker Reader” edited by Daniel Liechty. Have you experienced that ‘eureka moment’ when understanding happens, when connections are made that provide meaning for your life? Would you not agree that such moments must be what the artist feels when such a thing happens with their painting, or music, or dance, or etc.?

Ernest Becker has woven a great tapestry, which represents his answer to the question ‘what are we humans doing, why are we doing it, and how can we do it better?’ Becker has written four books “Beyond Alienation”, “Escape from Evil”, “Denial of Death”, and “The Birth and Death of Meaning”; all of which are essential components of his tapestry. Ernest Becker (1924-1974), a distinguished social theorist, popular teacher of anthropology and sociology psychology, won the Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction for the “Denial of Death”. Many weeks ago a forum member suggested that I might be interested in the author Ernest Becker and I was given the following web site. http://faculty.washington.edu/nelgee/hidden/solomonsound.htm This is a great one hour audio about Becker’s ideas given by a very good lecturer. Becker provides the reader with a broad and comprehensible synopsis of the accomplishments of the sciences of anthropology, psychology, sociology, and psychiatry. Knowledge of these accomplishments provides the modern reader with the means for the comprehension of why humans do as they do. Becker declares that these sciences prove that humans are not genetically driven to be the evil creatures that the reader of history might conclude them to be. We humans are victims of the societies that we create in our effort to flee the anxiety of death. We have created artificial meanings that were designed to hide our anxieties from our self; in this effort we have managed to create an evil far surpassing any that our natural animal nature could cause. Becker summarizes this synoptic journey of discovery with a suggested solution, which if we were to change the curriculums in our colleges and universities we could develop a citizenry with the necessary understanding to restructure our society in a manner less destructive and more in tune with our human nature. The only disagreement I have with Becker’s tapestry is in this solution he offers. I am convinced that he has failed to elaborate on an important step that is implied in his work but not given sufficient emphasis. That step is one wherein the general adult population takes up the responsibility that citizens of a democracy must take on; adults must develop a hobby “get a life—get an intellectual life”. In other words, it will be necessary that a significant share of the general population first comprehend these matters sufficiently to recognize the need for the proposed changes to our colleges and universities. .

I am convinced that we must become much more intellectually sophisticated so that together we can figure out these complex questions. I do not think presently we can handle such questions but I do think that we have the brain power but we lack the will and we fear our own capacity and will ignore the problem because of our timidity.

Excellent question. We judge our value generally by finding approval from our society. If the rest of society does it then it is good. It takes a very strong character to resist what the rest of society calls good. A good example might be when the US went into war in Iraq. Few voices were heard in opposition. It is a paradox that often what we do to make our self into a hero are at the expense of others. We feel good often by making others feel bad. We become heroes by killing our enemy who in turn become heroes by killing their enemy. Therein lay the rub. If we are to survive as a species we must learn a new secular moral code that everyone finds acceptable.

High School Heroes I suspect it is in high school that we get a real taste of what the hero system is all about. This is, perhaps, our first taste of what socialization, self-esteem, and heroism really mean to us personally. Each high school seems to offer some means for becoming a hero. Unfortunately it seems that the hero slots are few and they usually accentuate physical attributes. In one high school football is king of self-esteem, in another it may be basketball, in another it may be baseball, in another etc. There are other hero slots that are filled by those with ‘good looks’, ‘witty personality’, ‘has a car’, etc. Most students must find their own means for becoming heroes because the high school does not provide the means for sufficient hero slots to meet the demand. Self-esteem is the goal and heroism is the means,; those who do not find a means for establishing self-esteem are in trouble. “The supreme law [of life] is this: the sense of worth of the self not be allowed to be diminished.”--Alfred Adler. In other words, the fundamental law of human life is the urge to self-esteem. Our self-esteem is derived from symbols. In the ape such matters were biologically cared for but we humans depend upon a symbolic constitution of worth. We are largely artificialized creatures dependant upon our society to provide each of us with a means for establishing our own self-esteem, without which we go crazy. Our whole life is a continual animation seeking an artificial symbol of self-worth. Often net-worth is our avenue for satisfying this craving for self-worth. I suspect each of us has a movie-reel constantly running in our head whereby we maintain a real time grade for self-esteem. If that grade goes to ‘F’ such things as the massacre at Virginia Tech happen. These forum postings are part of my hero activity. What are some of your acts of heroism, and are they keeping your self-esteem grade high enough to satisfy you? Do you think that your society is providing you with sufficient means for your hero needs?

Glider I think that understanding and disinterested knowledge are the two sides of the same coin. I am sure that people on occasion bother to understand a domain of knowledge for reasons other than a desire to understand. Every specialist probably learns to understand his or her specialty and they have been led to do it because it is an instrument serving a career purpose. I think that a person strives to learn disinterested knowledge because they wish to understand that domain of knowledge. I do not think many people bother to study something that does not have a valuable payoff in money unless it is to understand. I would not learn to “do” calculus except that it is necessary to being an engineer. I would, however, study calculus if it helped me understand mathematics. Every engineer, when asked if s/he could “do” math would respond yes. Every engineer if asked do you understand math would answer quickly, are you kidding me. Disinterested knowledge is an intrinsic value. Disinterested knowledge is not a means but an end. It is knowledge I seek because I desire to know it. I mean the term 'disinterested knowledge' as similar to 'pure research', as compared to 'applied research'. Pure research seeks to know truth unconnected to any specific application. I think of the self-learner of disinterested knowledge as driven by curiosity and imagination to understand. The September Scholar seeks to 'see' and then to 'grasp' through intellection directed at understanding the self as well as the world. The knowledge and understanding that is sought by the September Scholar are determined only by personal motivations. It is noteworthy that disinterested knowledge is knowledge I am driven to acquire because it is of dominating interest to me. Because I have such an interest in this disinterested knowledge my adrenaline level rises in anticipation of my voyage of discovery. We often use the metaphors of 'seeing' for knowing and 'grasping' for understanding. I think these metaphors significantly illuminate the difference between these two forms of intellection. We see much but grasp little. It takes great force to impel us to go beyond seeing to the point of grasping. The force driving us is the strong personal involvement we have to the question that guides our quest. I think it is this inclusion of self-fulfillment, as associated with the question, that makes self-learning so important. The self-learner of disinterested knowledge is engaged in a single-minded search for understanding. The goal, grasping the 'truth', is generally of insignificant consequence in comparison to the single-minded search. Others must judge the value of the 'truth' discovered by the autodidactic. I suggest that truth, should it be of any universal value, will evolve in a biological fashion when a significant number of pursuers of disinterested knowledge engage in dialogue.

Rocket man I think that humans have a complex biological nature combined with a complex psychological nature. It appears to me that the biological aspect is fairly simple to comprehend whereas the psychological is extremely difficult to comprehend. You ask a good question. “How else can public institutions act except to support the status quo?” If the citizens in the democracy have keen critical thinking skills the institutions can support a rapidly evolving and dynamic consensus of what is best for the citizens. In a democracy like the US, where the citizens have few critical thinking skills, the status quo is king. It seems to me that the Internet discussion forum is the best vehicle available. It has outstanding flaws but if you see something better please tell me. Our technology has not destroyed us yet because we have had the bomb for only 62 years. I think we need to consider these matters in terms of hundreds and perhaps thousand of years and not in terms of years. Why should I care when I will be dead in a few years, is not an adequate attitude.

I am not completely sure of anything. But when a person makes the statements about psychology and psychoanalysis that you have I can only conclude that your knowledge is fragmmentary or so specialized that you fail to comprehend the scope and meaning of these two sciences to those who seek to comprehend human nature. I am using the duck test here.

Glider The study of psychology is the study of human nature. I agree that the study of ethics is also of benefit when secular moral philosophy is a question. Knowledge is like a jigsaw puzzle. We have created many puzzles in coping with reality and when we received a new piece (knowledge) that does not fit our present puzzles we forgetaboutit. However, if through disinterested knowledge we have created new puzzles we might find a place for this new fragment of knowledge to fit; thereby this fragment becomes our new knowledge. Knowledge that fits within one of our puzzles is a part of a domain of knowledge that for me is coherent. Knowledge that does not fit within one of my puzzles is a fragment, it has no coherence for me. Knowing psychology is a important aid in understanding the self and others. It is a very important means for ‘knowing thyself’. To know the self will cause a dramatic change from not knowing the self. I think that your knowledge of psychology and psychoanalysis is perhaps on the fragmentary side.

I think that psychology and psychoanalysis are the two sciences that each person needs to study as a means to understand the self and to understand others. Such understanding is necessary if we are to create a secular moral philosophy. Fragmentation of knowledge is not helpful in developing an understanding of our complex world.

Modern humans have two imperatives; both must be met if we are to survive. The practical imperative is the necessity to produce and consume, the moral imperative is the necessity to live together in harmony. Pre-bomb humans could ignore the moral imperative but modern humans cannot; we have created a technology that illuminates the need for the moral imperative. Our educational system is designed to solve the practical imperative and ignore the moral imperative. The only way I see that we can solve the moral imperative is that we become self-actualizing self-learners after our schooling is complete. If we do this we can develop the understanding required to solve the moral imperative. Solving the moral imperative is a long range goal; we cannot continue in our childish manner of indifference, ignorance, apathy, and skepticism. Keep hope alive by awakening from your childish slumber. You are no longer a child; you are men and women with a big job to do. Are you up to that challenge? Keep hope alive!

kenshin You are correct. It is the obvious upon which few ever focus their attention. As Einstein said fish cannot comprehend water. As you so well note, understanding is a rare quality.