Norm,
to be fair.....I'd say yes, but.....
the but is that we need to reserve a special meaning for those words when their intended
meaning Is limited to humans.
Don
"Norman K. McPhail" wrote:
> 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>
========================================
Posting to pcp-discuss@lanl.gov from Don Mikulecky <mikuleck@hsc.vcu.edu>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 20 2000 - 19:52:27 BST