(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing (fwd)

[Iorwerth Thomas]

>I'd like to reply inter-linearly, but I haven't figured out how to make 
>Thunderbird do so. So I'll reply in order; I hope that works.
>I was arguing in essence that enviroment is first and foremost- internal 
>states are derived always from that.  A thought-example. We live in a 
>universe where basic laws of logic hold.  I cannot set my internal states 
>(imagination and fantaszing really) to respond to the enviroment of a 
>universe where, say, Modus Tollens did not hold. I just can't. I can try to 
>work it out, but it never really gels.

I think it may be a bit more two way than that - in some ways, largly 
because there's a lot of contingency and flexibility in the way someone's 
belief structure can be constructed, and the same event can be subject to 
quite a few interpretations, but when it comes down to the raw material of 
these systems, you're probably right.

>It's like trying to experience a 9 spatial dimension universe.  We might 
>work out the math of it, but our internal states will never reflect it, 
>since they didn't evolve to do so.  We might reflect the changes in our 
>enviroment (our calculations about the enviroment of a 9-d universe) but we 
>will never get internal states directly corresponding.
>

I think there's a guy who's working on a program that helps people visualise 
4-d surfaces.  But not 9-d...  It can get quite tricky in 2-d as well.  I 
just finished reading the chapter in Penrose's 'The Road to Reality' on 
gauge fibre bundles and I'm not sure my mind has quite survived the 
experience.

>And of course selection pressures differ.  That's why we can witness 
>evolution, instead of always looking for indirect evidence.
>
>I'd like to hear a 'non-enviromental' influence. But of course, you must 
>remember, the 'NE' influence must not fall under any of the general 
>rules/heuristics evolution or culture (which derives from evolution-given 
>abilities and evolutionary enviromental influences, remember.) have worked 
>out.  I suspect you will have trouble :)
>

Arrgh.  Sounds like a 'limits of thought' type problem (in order to think 
about it we'd have to think what can't be thought, paraphrasing 
Wittgenstein).  This doesn't mean that such a thing can't exist - the main 
difference between biology and physics (so I've heard) is that exceptions to 
general rules are commomplace - but it does mean that I can't give an 
example.  I can wave my hands furiously and try and convince you that one 
_could_ exist, but you'd be rational in ignoring me.  Oh well.  :)

Iorwerth