Re: Informational dualism (was: Re: [pcp-discuss:] Fwd: "Intelligent Design" lobby Congress against Darwinism)

From: Don Mikulecky (mikuleck@HSC.VCU.EDU)
Date: Tue Jun 20 2000 - 19:24:12 BST

  • Next message: Norman K. McPhail: "Re: [pcp-discuss:] Fwd: "Intelligent Design" lobby Congress"

    Norm,
    You are assuming I meant that the modeling relation is only a good descriptor for human
    thought whereas I see it in terms of ALL anticipatory systems.
    Don

    "Norman K. McPhail" wrote:

    > Don:
    >
    > Is understanding confined only to our species? Can we imagine a form of understanding
    > that could occur without requiring any thinking? Or can a chimp, dog or parrot
    > understand human language?
    >
    > Can understanding take place without a brain? Can a sperm do its job without some form
    > of understanding what that job is? Does a jellyfish swim without understanding how to
    > swim?
    >
    > Can understanding exist separate and apart from life? Can a rock respond to gravity,
    > heat, light and the blows of another rock without having a form of understanding?
    >
    > Norm
    >
    > Don Mikulecky wrote:
    >
    > > Norm,
    > > I suggest that "thinking" is a process and "understanding" an outcome of that
    > > process. With respect to the modeling relation, thinking is making use of the MR
    > > while "understanding" is the result having decided (subjectivly) that the MR
    > > commutes.
    > > Respectfully,
    > > Don
    > >
    > > "Norman K. McPhail" wrote:
    > >
    > > > I like to distinguish between thinking and understanding. Is there anything to be
    > > > gained from substituting "understanding" for "thinking" in your sentence?
    > > >
    > > > I may be "understanding" something, and my
    > > > dog, and my fish, and I don't know about my earwig, but my sourdough
    > > > starter, and the water swirling in my toilet bowl, and my glass of iced
    > > > tea, are NOT.
    > > >
    > > > NKM
    > > >
    > > > Cliff Joslyn wrote:
    > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > Parsimony, on the other hand, argues EXACTLY to not extend terminology
    > > > > beyond its appropriate boundaries. I may be "thinking" something, and my
    > > > > dog, and my fish, and I don't know about my earwig, but my sourdough
    > > > > starter, and the water swirling in my toilet bowl, and my glass of iced
    > > > > tea, are NOT.
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > > ========================================
    > > > Posting to pcp-discuss@lanl.gov from "Norman K. McPhail" <norm@socal.wanet.com>
    > >
    > > ========================================
    > > Posting to pcp-discuss@lanl.gov from Don Mikulecky <mikuleck@hsc.vcu.edu>
    >
    > ========================================
    > Posting to pcp-discuss@lanl.gov from "Norman K. McPhail" <norm@socal.wanet.com>

    ========================================
    Posting to pcp-discuss@lanl.gov from Don Mikulecky <mikuleck@hsc.vcu.edu>



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 20 2000 - 19:21:53 BST