Re: mind and body
Norman K. McPhail (norm@SOCAL.WANET.COM)
Thu, 4 Jun 1998 10:54:57 -0700
John J. Kineman wrote:
>
> Reply to Ricardo's comments clarifying the approaches to building an Umwelt
> and Jerry's comments on word definitions:
>
> We seem to be concluding that there is a big difference between a
> language/definition based context (described by Ricardo in his earlier
> comment) and an environmental/experiential context, which perhaps is the
> Umwelt.
>
> Jerry Chandler's comments about definitions of "Umwelt" ironicly exemplify
> the problem we began discussing, i.e., we need a context (Umwelt) to
> understand "Umwelt."
>
> There is no advantage in defining a concept more precisely than one
> understands it. When someone constructs a virtual "Umwelt" we'll have a
> better idea of what it is, and it may then get named after that person. But
> the symbol (word) is meaningless until we know it refers to.
>
> So I conclude:
>
> 1. The word definition game (either us trying to define "Umwelt" or the
> computer trying to link symbols without grounding) doesn't add new
> information until it triggers an experiential context that can provide
> meaning (the grounding problem).
>
> 2. We have very little idea what experience is.
>
> A first step seems to be to develop some ideas on the nature of experience.
> Semiotics seems like the closest attempt, but it doesn't solve the
> grounding problem.
I, for one, agree completely with your conclusions. I don't claim to
have any advanced revelations or secret sources as to what experience
is. However, I have spent a lot of time wrestling with this problem.
And I've tried to write my thoughts down in a way that is easy to
understand.
If anyone else wants to try to figure out what experience is and how it
relates to the grounding problem, this may be a place to start. The
address is http://204.94.86.93/20.html
and http://204.94.86.93/21.html