On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 11:19 +0100, thor wrote:
> Yes I notised the reference of Gärdenfors. I haven't read his book but
> it strikes me as very top-down and disembodied view of thinking. But
> this view is surely good news for AI as it might be possible to make
> some
> (human like) intelligence after all, if he is right.
Heh, yes. I'm aware that I have little background in philosophy,
semiotics, cognitive science, etc so have little in the way of pinches
of salt to take his ideas with. But I really enjoyed his book.
> > Meaning exists in the geometrical relationships in your head and
> > not in
> > the outside world.
>
> That's a very French statement. Surely the person speaking is saying
> something with meaning? We use language to convey meaning.
Yes we can communicate meaning between us. But we all know what a messy
and error-prone process that is, and after a conversation we can still
have a very different idea about what we talked about... Listening to
the 'moral maze' on bbc radio reveals how useless attempts to convey
meaning between different viewpoints can be. I think music could be all
about making and breaking unity between the geometrical structures in
the musicians through conversation via instruments...
> I'd say that s/he is thinking already, s/he just doesn't have control
> over the
> body. Are you saying that only when she has mapped the muscle movements
> to higher level that can be "thought" in, that she is thinking?
> That's an
> interesting thought.
Yes it seems to me that there is very little happening inside the head
of a new baby, and the process of becoming happens through mapping and
exploring the world around over 80 years or so.
alex
Received on Fri Jul 11 2008 - 10:43:00 BST