X-Message-Number: 8678
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 07:32:46 -0400
From: "John P. Pietrzak" <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #8672
References: <>

Thomas Donaldson wrote:
> To John Pietrzak: Are we really disagreeing about anything or what?

In this case, I think so.  As below:

> [...] I would add, though, that when we look at what a neural net (or
> a human brain) actually does, it does not follow a pattern given by
> any definition or theory, but instead by a vague sense that one thing
> is close enough to another to be called the same. The definition and
> theories come later. The most interesting point, I'd say, is that
> this issue even occurs in adults: when we meet an experience for the
> first time, our response does not come from any theory or definition.

I've been using the term "definition" loosely in my statements.  No,
I agree, when people respond to new experiences they don't worry about
putting together a theory and testing it against a set of axioms they've
chosen according to some set of rules they've been taught.  But neither
do they just respond in some random manner.  There's a built-in bias
for people to act in a particular manner given a particular situation.

The universe is infinite; we aren't.  There are an innumerable amount
of ways to, say, categorize the variety of objects on my lawn, but
people are immediately able to pick out the rabbits there as important
objects, rather than discussing the rabbit ears on my lawn, or the
rabbit feet, or the individual hairs of rabbit fur.  Those are all
valid objects out there, but we, by default, generally consider an
animal as a unit, separate from the world around it.  If we didn't, it
would be much harder for us to deal with the world around us!

Anyway, I'm just saying we have some amount of instinct in us.


John

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8678