a little more McLuhan (& maybe Pynchon)

[Paul Mackin]

On 8/31/2011 9:11 AM, Bekah wrote:
> I really think y'all would enjoy "The Information: The History, the Theory, the Flood" by James Gleick.  It's a bit of everything from Plato's ideas to African drum-beats, Morse Code, McLuhan, Shannon, Dawkins and more.  Published in March of this year.

I read it and would also recommend.  Especially the earlier parts and up 
through the development of information theory.

P
>
> http://around.com/the-information
>
> Bekah
>
>
> On Aug 31, 2011, at 7:43 AM, alice wellintown<alicewellintown at gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> I stuck my own assertion into Pinker's book; I claim that computers do
>> not play chess and certainly can not defeat a grand master. A bunch of
>> very smart people use a computer to defeat a grand master who lays
>> without the use of one.
>>
>> Pinker does use the computer chess player analogy to make his point
>> that as complex as so-called thinking machines seem to be, as
>> sophisticated as so-called computer languages seem to be, they are in
>> fact simple when we put them next to the real thinking and basic
>> language of a human infant. Out of the brains of babes!
>>
>> It took a lot of evolution to make that big rug-rat head and squeeze
>> it into the world. There were periods of rapid change, when mutations
>> multiplied and the fittest, those who had offspring, carried the
>> adaptive language faculty and passed it on (it may have been nearly
>> vesigal or not essential to the fittest who survived, accidental and
>> not a factor but present nonetheless).
>>
>> On a related idea, The Neo-Evolutionists that McLuhan cites, like
>> Robert Redfield, are not determinsts, so free will. McLuhan, a
>> positive guy would be attracted to them. His Catholicism has the free
>> will puzzle solved. Pynchon too. We've known that certain spinal
>> reactions are without free will, like when we touch a hot stove and
>> the spine pulls our hand off it without consulting the brain. But are
>> all our decisions made without free will? I've worked with young
>> people for a long time. They simply don't think as much as adults do
>> before they act. This seems a reasonable argument for the abolishment
>> of the death penalty for anyone under the age of 25 or under the 100
>> IQ Bell apex. The actions of humans are rarely rational. We have to
>> work at thinking and our brains are designed to work by habit and take
>> short cuts around thinking. Today, we read that we need to teach
>> students to think, think critically. We can't do this. You can lead a
>> horse to water, but we can't force it to drink. On a mass scale, this
>> is the problem with our economy:
>>
>>   “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.” You
>> can force money on the system in exchange for government bonds, its
>> close money substitute; but you can’t make the money circulate against
>> new goods and new jobs."
>> Samuelson, Paul Anthony; Economics (1948), p 354.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 7:28 AM, Paul Mackin<mackin.paul at verizon.net>  wrote:
>>> On 8/30/2011 8:11 PM, alice wellintown wrote:
>>>> In the same book by Pinker, _The Language Instinct_, in Chapter 7,
>>>> "Talking Heads", he tosses the robots in the trash and kicks the AI
>>>> enthusiasts to the curb. Robots can't do the smple tasks that infant
>>>> humans are born doing. BTW, computers can not play chess. He also
>>>> makes fun of the idea of animal languages. Animal and computer
>>>> languages like Pluto, not planets.
>>> The paradox is that the "simple tasks" turn out to be the very hardest to
>>> understand in physicalist terms.
>>>
>>> Defeating grand master Evgeny Vladimirov was by comparison duck soup.
>>>
>>> How do the little tikes do it?
>>>
>>> P.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Paul Mackin<mackin.paul at verizon.net>
>>>>   wrote:
>>>>> On 8/30/2011 5:05 PM, cfabel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I’m not sure if this helps or just reveals my own misunderstanding of
>>>>> what’s
>>>>> going on here, but I believe there is quite a passel of research
>>>>> suggesting
>>>>> strongly that mental operations exist prior to the onset of language,
>>>>> conversation by gesture, and social interaction. So it seems not
>>>>> unreasonable to hypothesize, at least, that some of us “think” without
>>>>> words. But, language is not just significant symbols but syntax and
>>>>> syntax
>>>>> seems to be part of our bio-inheritance, part of our pre-social
>>>>> mind-brain
>>>>> (Chomsky’s “language faculty?”). So, syntax, probably, is neither learned
>>>>> nor constructed socially and this suggests a reversal of the model of
>>>>> symbolic interaction, mind, language, and the self. Bio-inheritance
>>>>> first,
>>>>> symbolic interaction follows, probably?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This sounds very relevant to Mark's question. The symbol consciousness
>>>>> seems
>>>>> to be kind of an overlay placed upon the real show going on in the neural
>>>>> networks.    AI theorists model both neural networks and symbol
>>>>> manipulation
>>>>> in order to provide a better understanding for the design of robots.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also there are the neuroscience findings (brain imaging) that support the
>>>>> idea that our nervous systems make decisions for us before we are even
>>>>> aware
>>>>> of them.  Throws into doubt so called "free will."
>>>>>
>>>>> P
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> C. F. Abel
>>>>>
>>>>> Chair
>>>>>
>>>>> Department of Government
>>>>>
>>>>> Stephen F. Austin State University
>>>>>
>>>>> Nacogdoches, Texas 75962
>>>>>
>>>>> (936) 468-3903
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From:owner-pynchon-l at waste.org  [mailto:owner-pynchon-l at waste.org] On
>>>>> Behalf
>>>>> Of Mark Kohut
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 3:27 PM
>>>>> To: David Morris
>>>>> Cc: alice wellintown; David Payne; Paul Mackin; pynchon -l
>>>>> Subject: Re: a little more McLuhan (&   maybe Pynchon)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This has been a fascinating, because more puzzling than usual, thread.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not know what I may be "mistaking" my word-thinking for, since I am
>>>>> just offering it as a phenomenon.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not know if it comes from some learned or innate 'grammar".........
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I KNOW it slows me down --in reading anyway. (Although I have
>>>>> various
>>>>> speeds--as we all do?)
>>>>>
>>>>> How word-thinking is connected to my auditory sense, I do not know
>>>>> either,
>>>>> except that, as I wrote, it happens
>>>>>
>>>>> when I listen to TV, say, so that sense is involved. Happens (mostly)
>>>>> when I
>>>>> read in quiet. happens when I write.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sometimes when I 'think", I think.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And, I am sure I 'think', experience much mentally, in other ways than in
>>>>> words as well. Not to even mention the Unconscious.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I just wondered who else is like me in this regard. What they think it
>>>>> might
>>>>> mean for our orientation in the world.
>>>>>
>>>>> And, for whom this may NOT be true.............and what that might mean
>>>>> for
>>>>> them...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And how societies might handle the dirfferences.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: David Morris<fqmorris at gmail.com>
>>>>> To: alice wellintown<alicewellintown at gmail.com>
>>>>> Cc: pynchon -l<pynchon-l at waste.org>
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 2:57 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: a little more McLuhan (&   maybe Pynchon)
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 10:34 AM, alice wellintown
>>>>> <alicewellintown at gmail.com>   wrote:
>>>>>>   I think McLuhan would say that, even on a gray scale, black&   white are
>>>>>> qualitatively different......like literate vs. pre-literate even on a
>>>>>> gray
>>>>>> scale
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He would say this.
>>>>> And who wouldn't say this?  Without qualitative differences in a gray
>>>>> scale, no images could be seen.  But the point of a scale is minute
>>>>> differences.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> And young 'uns learn most languages as abstract marks on a page.
>>>>>>> English
>>>>>>> say.....
>>>>>> This is false. First, humans don't learn language but are born with
>>>>>> language.
>>>>> Language versus literacy?  I think we've jumped a step here.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The literate vs. pre-literate distinction is in anthropologists' work
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> is still used to the present....
>>>>>> Like all technologies, printing brought positives and negatives. Surely
>>>>>> there are things that pre-literate cultures have kept or developed that
>>>>>> literate cultures have lost or neglected. We would all be better runners
>>>>>> if
>>>>>> we hadn't abandoned the cave and invented the wheel. But the health that
>>>>>> would come with our endurance would not give us longer or better lives.
>>>>>> We
>>>>>> would die quite young.
>>>>> AMEN!
>>>>>
>>>>> But would our shorter lives have been more rich inside?  (joke)
>>>>>
>>>>>>> No one has (yet) answered whether they think mostly in words....for
>>>>>>> example, I watch TV....I SEE the words they are speaking...mostly...not
>>>>>>> every, I'm sure....
>>>>>> We think in grammar not words.
>>>>> I'd like to see more of this "We think in grammar not words" theory.
>>>>> If by this grammar you mean simple equations of logic revolving around
>>>>> desire, fear, etc, then I think I understand your statement.  These
>>>>> binaries are not our enemies (as GR might imply).  They are natural
>>>>> first perceptions that we need to see more finely with practiced
>>>>> observation.
>>>>>
>>>>> On another level, individual humans are often predisposed toward
>>>>> certain sensory inputs: visual and/or auditory primarily.  I am
>>>>> personally very visually oriented.  Maybe Mark mistakes his
>>>>> word-thinking from being primarily auditory.
>>>>>
>>>>> David Morris
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>