> I can understand why the spectacular emergence of the computer has created
> all of the "mental models" or the brain as a computer, with folks using
> computer language to describe how they think.
It's possible that the relation between the brain and computers is more
than excitement on the part of observers. (hasten to add that I'm not
saying that You are the excited observer) The seemingly innumerable things
that have to be taught->programmed into a computer have begun to appear
(to an extent) like what we have to be taught (possibly through
experience). For example, vision is not a given. I think that knowing how
to react to the sensation of balance is developed through experience. We
can add applications (knowledge sets) to computers or thinkers and get new
capabilities. And the perception of self-evidence of numerous thoughts is
based on innumerable more simple data that we've processed or put together
before the "self-evident" thought.
> I am not clear why sociobiological mental models have suddenly become
> widespread, and so compelling that many who hold them want to talk about
> them not as metaphors or models but as truth: why they want to believe
> that social groups are alive and evolve and get sick and die, and so on.
I've been reading Dennett's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" since about last
June. Taking his out-and-out comment that natural selection hasn't been
made the most of in contemporary thought and imagining others who hold the
same viewpoint, I wonder whether there could at least be a partial
explanation of holding models as truth in the following. (Let me note that
I'm seeking to state the view, not advocating it, nor believing that we
got here just through evolution. The following is not my view.)
- natural selection explains for the most part how we got here
- contrary viewpoints abound
- using natural selection more thoroughly seems to overcome the other
viewpoints
- the same principles of natural selection can be seen working in
areas that do not seem to be directly biological such as thinking
(memes) and group (or societal) interactions
- natural selection or evolutionary explanation works (appears to
be a more thorough understanding of what is going on) in
non-biological as well as directly biological considerations
- therefore, the sociobiological viewpoint does not appear to its
users to be a model as much as the most accurate knowledge that is
presently available
Dennett makes reference to the question of whether he claims that
thermostats think - he says he does not.
Have a nice day
John Paul Fullerton
jpf@myriad.net
--"John Paul Fullerton" <jpf@mail.myriad.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>