Re: Laws of Intelligence -2

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 05:09:36 GMT, "R. Baldwin"
<res0k7yx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>"Zoe" <muze10@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

snip>

>> it is already taken for granted that our brains recognize certain
>> items as created by humans. It is these generally accepted items that
>> I am observing in an effort to see if there are consistent
>> characteristics for all these items.
>
>Zoe, the point I was making is that our brains do not recognize items by
>well-defined characteristics.

I would not go down this road, if I were you, R. Science is based on
observation, and if you try to undermine physical observation, saying
that our brains do not recognize this or that, then all science would
be in trouble.
>
>>>
>>>There are no standards, and it is by no means infallible. It is a
>>>probabalistic, heuristic scheme.
>>>
>>>I'll give you an example. This question that shows why object recognition
>>>is
>>>so difficult to define: What is a cup?
>>
>> but Mr. R., I am not asking that question. I am not asking: what is
>> a cardboard box? what is a flashlight? what is a computer? I am
>> asking, what are the common characteristics of mental activity for all
>> such items generally accepted to be made by humans.
>>
>
>The point of the question is to show that it is not easy to use
>characteristics to define an object. Consider:
>
>A cup holds liquid, but so does a vase, a pitcher, a bowl, a tankard, a
>glass, a mug, etc.
>A cup may or may not have a handle.
>A cup may have a round cross-section, but it does not need to.
>A cup may vary in size and shape, approaching for example the size and/or
>shape of a glass, a mug, or a tankard.
>A cup may be made of plastic, glass, ceramic, wood, metal, or other
>materials.
>
>So what is a cup? How do we recognize whether an object is a cup?

you didn't hear me the first time, I can tell. Repeat: I am not
asking: what is a cardboard box? what is a flashlight? what is a
computer? I am asking, what are the common characteristics of mental
activity for all such items generally accepted to be made by humans.

Are there signs of decision making in the making of the cup? Then
that is what I am interested in; not the size, the style, the
function, the material of the cup, but the mental activity reflected
in its creation.
>
>If you can come up with a clear way to answer this, you would be well on
>your way to understanding how the mind can instantly recognize that a
>computer is designed but has trouble telling whether stone chips are
>designed.

I am not comparing computers with stone chips or computers with a
couple of straight lines that tell me nothing about mental activity.
I am comparing complex systems with complex systems. That is one
clear area that can produce solid conclusions.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Clarks dilemma
    ... use a "K" one with altriciality, e.g. bears, seals, ... What is important is to explain why humans produce so much ... more altricial young than other great apes. ... Humans evolved large brains living in Africa. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Laws of Intelligence -2
    ... >>> creative mental activity can be described in terms of laws. ... between neurons in the brain. ... the Turing test doesn't actually _prove_ that the subjects ... >>humans because of the way our brains work. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Sociobacteriology
    ... "systems with structures like brains"? ... emerge out of a crowd of humans than a clump of bacteria. ... The complex systems audience knows what the words mean and how they ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Clarks dilemma
    ... why humans produce so much more altricial young than other ... and of natural selection. ... Human infants are altricial ... brains, etc. at different rates. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Body Temperature
    ... >> brains are such a good evolutionary trick against predation that it's ... but it hardly explains why humans get about the ... same metabolic time as Capuchins, which mature in a far, far lower ... for delayed aging in primates, ...
    (sci.med)