5HC : Skinner, Turing (fwd)

Iorwerth Thomas · 08 Feb 2005, 04:40 · from 2005-February.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: iorweththomas at hotmail.com (Iorwerth Thomas)
Date: Tue Feb  8 04:40:11 2005
Subject: (urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <420805E5.7000104 at gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY102-F182E7B918A75075B06E005B9740 at phx.gbl>

>I'd like to reply inter-linearly, but I haven't figured out how to make 
>Thunderbird do so. So I'll reply in order; I hope that works.
>I was arguing in essence that enviroment is first and foremost- internal 
>states are derived always from that.  A thought-example. We live in a 
>universe where basic laws of logic hold.  I cannot set my internal states 
>(imagination and fantaszing really) to respond to the enviroment of a 
>universe where, say, Modus Tollens did not hold. I just can't. I can try to 
>work it out, but it never really gels.

I think it may be a bit more two way than that - in some ways, largly 
because there's a lot of contingency and flexibility in the way someone's 
belief structure can be constructed, and the same event can be subject to 
quite a few interpretations, but when it comes down to the raw material of 
these systems, you're probably right.

>It's like trying to experience a 9 spatial dimension universe.  We might 
>work out the math of it, but our internal states will never reflect it, 
>since they didn't evolve to do so.  We might reflect the changes in our 
>enviroment (our calculations about the enviroment of a 9-d universe) but we 
>will never get internal states directly corresponding.
>

I think there's a guy who's working on a program that helps people visualise 
4-d surfaces.  But not 9-d...  It can get quite tricky in 2-d as well.  I 
just finished reading the chapter in Penrose's 'The Road to Reality' on 
gauge fibre bundles and I'm not sure my mind has quite survived the 
experience.

>And of course selection pressures differ.  That's why we can witness 
>evolution, instead of always looking for indirect evidence.
>
>I'd like to hear a 'non-enviromental' influence. But of course, you must 
>remember, the 'NE' influence must not fall under any of the general 
>rules/heuristics evolution or culture (which derives from evolution-given 
>abilities and evolutionary enviromental influences, remember.) have worked 
>out.  I suspect you will have trouble :)
>

Arrgh.  Sounds like a 'limits of thought' type problem (in order to think 
about it we'd have to think what can't be thought, paraphrasing 
Wittgenstein).  This doesn't mean that such a thing can't exist - the main 
difference between biology and physics (so I've heard) is that exceptions to 
general rules are commomplace - but it does mean that I can't give an 
example.  I can wave my hands furiously and try and convince you that one 
_could_ exist, but you'd be rational in ignoring me.  Oh well.  :)

Iorwerth

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net