Re: What the hell does 'intersubjective' mean?
From: PD (pdraper_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 02/01/05
- Next message: PD: "Re: What the hell does 'intersubjective' mean?"
- Previous message: PD: "Re: What the hell does 'intersubjective' mean?"
- In reply to: AllYou!: "Re: What the hell does 'intersubjective' mean?"
- Next in thread: PD: "Re: What the hell does 'intersubjective' mean?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 1 Feb 2005 08:04:15 -0800
AllYou! wrote:
> "PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1107265874.419489.66600@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > AllYou! wrote:
> > > "PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1107211150.219879.140100@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > > AllYou! wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Pattern recognition is a level above sensation and involves
an
> > > > intellectual process. This
> > > > > processing of the stimuli is observation. In the case of
> > > > observation, I would not argue
> > > > > that the mind can be conditioned to process in particular
> > patterns.
> > > >
> > > > And if the "conditioning" is in no way volitional but is itself
> > > > dependent on the environment's impact on the senses? If the
> > > > conditioning is biological cause and effect, at least in part
> > (where
> > > > there may not be a clear line at the edge between parts)? Then
what
> > > > intellectual process is involved? And in other case studies,
how
> > would
> > > > you determine which ones are volitional, intellectual, or
> > biologically
> > > > reflexive?
> > >
> > > I don't need to do any of these to maintain my point that none of
> > them are intectual
> > > choices made at the moment of observation.
> >
> > Now I'm confused. Not more than one post ago you said: "Pattern
> > recognition is a level above sensation and involves an intellectual
> > process. This
> > processing of the stimuli is observation. In the case of
observation,
> > I would not argue
> > that the mind can be conditioned to process in particular patterns.
In
> > the case of
> > observation, I would argue that we are free to invent any concepts
to
> > explain and
> > categorize the stimuli which we receive within the limits of
> > consistency of all other
> > experiences."
> >
> > What you're saying now seems to contradict this.
>
> It's entirely possible that I've misunderstood you, but not possible
that I'm purposefully
> running you in circles. So let me explain.
You have misunderstood me, so I'll make the point clearer. You are
looking at observers only in a mature state. My point was that pattern
recognition is a *developmental* process. This we ascertain from
exceptions in which the development is arrested or deliberately
constrained. However, the exceptions aren't the point. The point is the
developmental nature of pattern recognition in the majority. The
commonality of the experience for observers may very well depend on a
common in situ developmental process. Moreover, that commonality cannot
be established until after the developmental process is complete -- the
basis for your claim is, to use the technical meaning of the term,
convoluted with some assumptions about the developmental process.
Now the question arises, how much of that development is due to
convention (which I would daresay overlaps with free invention in a way
that would be difficult to separate)? How much of it would arise from
the pre-existing structure of the brain?
Then, the next question arises: How much of science can be associated
with a *developmental* process? How much of that development is due to
convention or common practice? How much of it arises from the
pre-existing structure of the brain? How would you plan to separate
those?
PD
>
> IMO, the starting point is sensory stimulation. To be, the begins
with the stimulation of
> nerve endings by some external phenomenon and ends with the
stimulation of brain cells.
> I'm no biology expert and so I say this in a generic context. Within
that description,
> stimulations are not free inventions.
>
> The next level is pattern recognition. These two levels combined are
what I would define
> as observation. The pattern recognition phase is the matching of a
stimulus with other
> like stimuli. I also argue that although there are no assurances to
be made as the
> infallibility of this pattern recognition, whatever conditioning may
have affected or
> influenced this process, it is not one subject to free invention.
IOW, we are not free to
> simply decide to see red as blue. We are not free to decide that
we'd rather feel hot as
> cold. We might, in fact, do these very things, however, it would not
be by freely making
> those choices.
>
> Therefore, when I say that I would not argue that the mind can be
conditioned to some
> specific pattern recognition, it simply manes that I'll accept, for
the sake of this
> argument, that it's possible. However, whatever pattern recognition
methodology we do
> you, we're still not freely choosing to see red as blue.
>
> Also, although I'm sure there are probably brains or minds which are
so damaged that they
> have no ability to perform any pattern matching and so much freely
invent much if not all
> of what they sense. If this exception to the rule is where you'd
like to hand your hat,
> then I'll not debate you on the point as it's too silly IMO.
>
> The next level in this intellectual process is the ordering of all
our observations so as
> to develop some common sense of nature. And what I will say is that
we are free to invent
> any concept which might explain or predict any of our observations,
as well as free to
> invent concepts which are contrary to this common sense. IOW, we are
free to develop a
> concept wherein blue is red or hot is cold or space shrinks or
processes slow or even up
> is down. However, those concepts are only credible to the degree
that they're consistent
> with measurements, and measurements are observations.
- Next message: PD: "Re: What the hell does 'intersubjective' mean?"
- Previous message: PD: "Re: What the hell does 'intersubjective' mean?"
- In reply to: AllYou!: "Re: What the hell does 'intersubjective' mean?"
- Next in thread: PD: "Re: What the hell does 'intersubjective' mean?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
