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

From: Norman K. McPhail (norm@SOCAL.WANET.COM)
Date: Tue Jun 20 2000 - 19:40:50 BST

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

    Don:

    Yes, I made that mistake and your point is well taken. Would you define an "anticipatory
    system" as inclusive of both thinking and understanding?

    NKM

    Don Mikulecky wrote:

    > 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>

    ========================================
    Posting to pcp-discuss@lanl.gov from "Norman K. McPhail" <norm@socal.wanet.com>



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 20 2000 - 19:43:37 BST