a little more McLuhan (& maybe Pynchon)

[Ian Livingston]

Antonio Damasio's Descartes Error may also be pertinent from a
neuroscientist's perspective.


On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at verizon.net> wrote:
> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
>



-- 
"Less than any man have I  excuse for prejudice; and I feel for all
creeds the warm sympathy of one who has come to learn that even the
trust in reason is a precarious faith, and that we are all fragments
of darkness groping for the sun. I know no more about the ultimates
than the simplest urchin in the streets." -- Will Durant