Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,comp.ai,sci.cognitive,sci.psychology.theory
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!fas-news.harvard.edu!newspump.wustl.edu!news.ecn.bgu.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!uknet!newsfeed.ed.ac.uk!hwcee!andrew
From: andrew@cee.hw.ac.uk (Andrew Dinn)
Subject: Re: Dennett on pain (was Does AI make philosophy obsolete?)
Message-ID: <DEuE3F.Lr7@cee.hw.ac.uk>
Followup-To: rec.arts.books,comp.ai,sci.cognitive,sci.psychology.theory
Sender: news@cee.hw.ac.uk (News Administrator)
Organization: Dept of Computing and Electrical Engineering, Heriot-Watt University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <4159is$l0u@Mars.mcs.com> <41fqic$fvu@Mars.mcs.com> <JMC.95Sep5154548@Steam.stanford.edu> <435v8v$1qg@percy.cs.bham.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 11:47:39 GMT
Lines: 98
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:33402 sci.cognitive:9592 sci.psychology.theory:683

Aaron Sloman (A.Sloman@cs.bham.ac.uk) wrote:

[re concept associated with matter]

: Concepts generated by this theory (e.g. the concepts located in the
: periodic table of elements, and concepts of chemical compounds whose
: possibility arises out of the theories of valency, etc.) may partly
: overlap in extension with the pre-existing concepts which endure in
: non-technical conversations.

: But scientists studying water, iron, etc. are no longer confused by
: the pre-scientific semantics of the concepts.

Who said anyone was necessarily `confused' by the `pre-scientific
semantics' of water, iron, etc. The fact that the pre-scientific
concepts are not suitable for the purpose of scientific investigations
does not imply that they are either confused or confusing. If you mean
the `proto-scientific' versions of these concepts that is a different
matter and I agree with you.

: Similarly, when we have good new theories of the architecture of
: mind they will generate concepts of possible mental states,
: processes, capabilities, etc. which will be usable in technical and
: scientific investigations and discussions, but will not have the
: muddles, vagueness, internal inconsistencies, etc. of ordinary
: concepts.

Ditto my last comment. Granted some `pre-scientific' concepts of mind
are fundamentally confused and confusing (e.g. the notion of [free]
will) but most are only so when applied out of context and most of the
time contexts in which pre-scientific concepts of mind are clear are
both well-known and agreed. And most scientific concepts of mind
suffer from the same contextual limitations only more so. Their domain
is usually restricted to the laboratory. Much of cognitive psychology
only begins to make sense in relation to the performance of laboratory
experiments rather than useful, purposeful behaviour.

: Yet both will coexist, for the prescientific concepts of mind
: evolved over thousands of years to suit ordinary everyday purposes
: of talking about ourselves and our acquaintances, and in most
: ordinary everyday contexts they will still suffice.

There is a real problem with the pejorative tone and language you
adopt here. It's not a question of `will suffice even though there are
much clearer, more acurate, scientific methods available'. It's a case
of will suffice because i) scientific methods rely on constraining
subjects' behaviour and making complex measurements to a degree which
invalidates their suitability as an alternative and ii) because people
get by quite happily with pe-scientific concepts for the purpose they
have in mind (no pun intended) and so are in no need of a `real'
scientific concept to replace their `ersatz' concept.

: In both cases (physics and psychology) the two sets of concepts will
: not endure completely independently. There will be some interaction
: and probably some gradual permeation of non-scientific thought and
: language by the new scientific ideas, as always happens -- e.g. the
: notion of something being radioactive.

There certainly will not for concepts which are impractical, which in
the case of psychology gives a pretty high hit rate. Take, for example
the notion that dreaming is reducible to REM movement. People are
*never* going to start basing their reports on whether they dreamed on
the presence or absence of REM movement, if nothing else because no
one is going to install the relevant kit in their bedrooms for that
purpose. Even if someone did do so it would be pointless to raise the
subject of your dreams if they were dreams whose presence you only
knew of on the basis of REM movement. Ditto for the notion that hunger
relates to chemical and physical changes in the CNS, the stomach, the
bowel etc.  Ditto for the notion of short-term and long-term memory
based on different types of brain activity. Each of these concepts has
a well understood and useful behavioural underpinning to which the
original concept has a *necessary* relation. The `explanations' equate
the behaviour to very different and *contingently* related phenomena
and give them the same name, thereby supplanting the original concept
and conflating the different associated concerns.

: Alas, I fear that our educational practices are such that it may
: take a long long time for new ideas about the architecture of mind
: to percolate into the teaching of these people. There are still
: philosophers who discuss causation as if virtual machines in
: computing systems had never been thought of, and there are still
: psychologists who are trained to make lots of measurements and do
: statistical analyses, but not to think about underlying mechanisms,
: e.g. because they think the only level of mechanism must be neural
: or physical. (The phrase "physical symbol system" used by Newell and
: Simon helps to perpetuate this particular confusion.)

And there are equally many psychologists and philosophers who far too
readily assimilate or equate concepts without heeding the different
contexts in which they are applicable and the different linguistic and
behavioural practices which are associated with successful employment
the concepts. Oh, and mathematicians too. They're on the list.


Andrew Dinn
-----------
O alter Duft aus Maerchenzeit / Berauschest wieder meine Sinne
Ein naerrisch Heer aus Schelmerein / Durchschwirrt die leichte Luft
