From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Tue Sep 24 2002 - 03:13:48 MDT
On Wednesday, August 21, 2002 4:36 PM Rafal Smigrodzki
rms2g@virginia.edu wrote:
> Even this does not seem to mean that much. I might have propensity
to,
> say, come to a certain conclusion. Does that mean my knowledge is
> grounded in that propensity? Or, rather, would one want to be aware
of
> the propensity and find a way to independently evaluate it?
>
> ### There is an inborn, genetically determined numerosity system in
our
> brain. The number of objects in your field of vision, up to 4 or 5 at
a
> time, is being continuously and subconsciously monitored. Even infants
will
> detect abnormal changes in the number of some objects (equivalent to
> arithmetically false statements). This system guides the development
of your
> conscious mathematical reasoning. You do have the propensity to think
that
> 2+2=4, you were born with it. Same applies to many rules that form the
naive
> physics, the simple concepts of space and time. It is the interaction
> between your inborn propensities and sensory data, that allows you to
build
> your conceptual knowledge. Relying on sensory data alone and simple
Hebbian
> learning (or other context-independent rules) would probably slow your
mind
> s development by orders of magnitude, if not stymied it altogether.
See the
> persons with FOX2 mutations - they have a language disability, because
of
> miswiring in the motor systems, not insufficient sensory data. Both a
ready
> brain (built by non-sensory accumulation of knowledge in the course of
> evolution) and compatible sensory input is needed to make a functional
human
> mind.
Sorry it took so long to get back to you on this.
I won't disagree with what you say. I would not argue against there
being a need to have certain systems in place to process data. After
all, we don't see chairs or rocks using concepts. (Note the empirical
basis here.:) I said as much, in agreement with Kelley, in my review of
his book. Awareness works by specific means in specific ways and not
others. I would still say conceptual knowledge is ultimately justified
empirically. Even our knowledge of such propensities is empirical.
There still has to be something to be aware of for the processing to get
under way.
Yes, the mind interacts with the world. It's not a clear window. I
don't see where we disagree here -- except maybe over defining where
perception ends and conception begins.
Cheers!
Dan
See "For a Free Frontier: The Case for Space Colonization" at:
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/SpaceCol.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:15 MST