|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: mikamika Date: May 2, 2008 14:36
On May 2, 12:14 pm, "Rick, M.A." wrote:
> "mika" wrote:
>>> "Rick, M.A." wrote:
>>> To begin with, in the natural setting where the effects play out in real
>>> life, we can't know.
>> If we can't know, then how can one act "in a self-interested way
>> that is clearly consistent with the nature of the stimuli",
>
> I've been working through that very point with Erwin. If you assume that
> behaving in self interested way that's consistent with the nature of the
> stimuli requires that a choice be made, then you can't. I've advanced some
> reasons for why choice is not required.
You've been working through the issue of choice with Erwin. What I'm
asking is not about the matter of choice but about the wisdom in
basing one's actions (whether consciously chosen or not) on unknown
and potentially inaccurate stimulii.
|
| Show full article (3.07Kb) |
|
| | 48 Comments |
|
|
Author: Rick, M.A.Rick, M.A. Date: May 2, 2008 15:37
> You've been working through the issue of choice with Erwin. What I'm
> asking is not about the matter of choice but about the wisdom in
> basing one's actions (whether consciously chosen or not) on unknown
> and potentially inaccurate stimulii.
And I'm telling over and over again that that is simply the nature of
things, slightly modified. No one thing forms the entire basis of our
actions. But we are constantly biased by many sources of information, some
of which do not register consciously, and the cues that initiate those
biases are never 100%% predictive. I don't know how many ways I can say it:
that's the way normal cognition works. The vast majority of cues, processed
implicitly and explicitly, are probabilistic.
> Perhaps, but they do not address the question of why you think it's a
> good idea to condition one's actions based on unknown and potentially
> inaccurate stimulii,
Complain to nature about that one.
|
| Show full article (5.73Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: mikamika Date: May 2, 2008 19:23
On May 2, 3:37 pm, "Rick, M.A." wrote:
> "mika" wrote:
>> What I'm
>> asking is not about the matter of choice but about the wisdom in
>> basing one's actions (whether consciously chosen or not) on unknown
>> and potentially inaccurate stimulii.
>
> And I'm telling over and over again that that is simply the nature of
> things, slightly modified.
You may as well say "the sky is green, slightly modified".
I understand your explanation of how it's the nature of things. What
doesn't add up for me is the slightly modified part.
> No one thing forms the entire basis of our
> actions. But we are constantly biased by many sources of information, some
> of which do not register consciously, and the cues that initiate those
> biases are never 100%% predictive. I don't know how many ways I can say it:
> that's the way normal cognition works. The vast majority of cues, processed
> implicitly and explicitly, are probabilistic.
|
| Show full article (3.93Kb) |
| 5 Comments |
|
|
Author: Rick, M.A.Rick, M.A. Date: May 3, 2008 07:09
> On May 2, 3:37 pm, "Rick, M.A." wrote:
>> "mika" wrote:
>>> What I'm
>>> asking is not about the matter of choice but about the wisdom in
>>> basing one's actions (whether consciously chosen or not) on unknown
>>> and potentially inaccurate stimulii.
>> And I'm telling over and over again that that is simply the nature of
>> things, slightly modified.
> You may as well say "the sky is green, slightly modified".
> I understand your explanation of how it's the nature of things. What
> doesn't add up for me is the slightly modified part.
I'm sorry. I guess I was unclear. What I slightly modified was your
statement about "basing one's actions." Preconscious influences aren't the
entire basis for actions. They are influencing factors, among many factors.
That's the modification I was making there.
|
| Show full article (11.88Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: mikamika Date: May 4, 2008 18:29
On May 3, 7:09 am, "Rick, M.A." wrote:
> "mika" wrote:
>
>> I looked up the definition of "cognition" to make sure I asked exactly
>> what I meant to. This is the one I referenced:
>> cognition (New Oxford American Dictionary)
>> the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding
>> through thought, experience, and the senses.
>> € a result of this; a perception, sensation, notion, or intuition.
>
> That works for me. By "thought" I imagine Oxford means what we've been
> talking about as explicit thought, that of which we are aware of thinking
> when we think it: the internal monologue. The word "experience" here is
> neutral to conscious awareness. "Senses" is also neutral to conscious
> awareness.
|
| Show full article (5.90Kb) |
| 4 Comments |
|
|
Author: Rick, M.A.Rick, M.A. Date: May 4, 2008 19:26
> The knowledge that is acquired through experience and the senses may
> be 'neutral to conscious awareness', but the *understanding* which is
> a necessary part of cognition *does* require conscious awareness.
Conscious awareness and "understanding" the way you mean it are a portion of
cognition, not the whole thing. And meaningful action, the way I've been
discussing it, does not require that every influence upon it be consciously
registered, so there's likewise no requirement for that level of
"understanding."
> It
> seems to me that you have either been ignoring the step between
> acquiring information and making sense of it, or you have been
> assuming that step is always, can be, or should be a programmed
> response. It's hard to tell, since I haven't been able to get a clear
> answer to this question from you yet, and you avoided addressing
> similar questions from Erwin. Your model is missing a step, in which
> meaning is applied to the received input.
|
| Show full article (10.71Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: mikamika Date: May 5, 2008 09:21
On May 4, 7:26 pm, "Rick, M.A." wrote:
> "mika" wrote:
>> The knowledge that is acquired through experience and the senses may
>> be 'neutral to conscious awareness', but the *understanding* which is
>> a necessary part of cognition *does* require conscious awareness.
>
> Conscious awareness and "understanding" the way you mean it are a portion of
> cognition, not the whole thing. And meaningful action, the way I've been
> discussing it, does not require that every influence upon it be consciously
> registered, so there's likewise no requirement for that level of
> "understanding."
Yes, there is. Meaningful action requires consciousness, even if it
does not require that every influence upon it is consciously
registered. Again, you're skipping the critical step between
receiving and processing input (whether consciously or not), and the
actual action that one takes.
|
| Show full article (5.33Kb) |
| 2 Comments |
|
|
Author: The Speaking ClockThe Speaking Clock Date: May 5, 2008 10:05
On 5 May, 18:21, mika gmail.com> wrote:> On May 4, 7:26 pm, "Rick, M.A." wrote:
>
>> "mika" wrote:
>>> The knowledge that is acquired through experience and the senses may
>>> be 'neutral to conscious awareness', but the *understanding* which is
>>> a necessary part of cognition *does* require conscious awareness.
>
>> Conscious awareness and "understanding" the way you mean it are a portion of
>> cognition, not the whole thing. And meaningful action, the way I've been
>> discussing it, does not require that every influence upon it be consciously
>> registered, so there's likewise no requirement for that level of
>> "understanding."
>
> Yes, there is. Meaningful action requires consciousness, even if it
> does not require that every influence upon it is consciously
> registered. Again, you're skipping the critical step between
> receiving and processing input (whether consciously or not), and the
> actual action that one takes.
> ...
|
| Show full article (5.67Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Rick, M.A.Rick, M.A. Date: May 5, 2008 10:43
> Yes, there is. Meaningful action requires consciousness, even if it
> does not require that every influence upon it is consciously
> registered. Again, you're skipping the critical step between
> receiving and processing input (whether consciously or not), and the
> actual action that one takes.
> If one is not conscious of one's actions, where is the meaning? Are
> you claiming that actions have inherent meaning absent of or
> independent of the person who is acting? If so, what is the
> foundation of that claim? It seems to me it is a belief that you
> mistakenly think is evidenced by those scientific studies you cited.
> What exactly is your definition of "meaning", or at least, "meaningful
> action" the way you've been discussing it here?
One is always conscious of ones actions, unless they're sleep walking or
something. One is not always conscious of everything that's influencing
those actions, and some influences are not as readily subject to conscious
choices either.
|
| Show full article (10.79Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: mikamika Date: May 5, 2008 10:58
On May 5, 10:05 am, The Speaking Clock live.co.uk>
wrote:> On 5 May, 18:21, mika gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> On May 4, 7:26 pm, "Rick, M.A." wrote:
>
>>> "mika" wrote:
>>>> The knowledge that is acquired through experience and the senses may
>>>> be 'neutral to conscious awareness', but the *understanding* which is
>>>> a necessary part of cognition *does* require conscious awareness.
>
>>> Conscious awareness and "understanding" the way you mean it are a portion of
>>> cognition, not the whole thing. And meaningful action, the way I've been
>>> discussing it, does not require that every influence upon it be consciously
>>> registered, so there's likewise no requirement for that level of
>>> "understanding."
>
>> Yes, there is. Meaningful action requires consciousness, even if it ...
|
| Show full article (6.05Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
