a little more McLuhan (& maybe Pynchon)

[alice wellintown]

I read parts of Descartes Dream by Davis and Hersh, but this one looks
more promising. Just re-read the NYT BR of James Gleick’s book, will
read it, Thanks

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Ian Livingston
<igrlivingston at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>