Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.ai,alt.consciousness
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!ub!galileo.cc.rochester.edu!prodigal.psych.rochester.edu!stevens
From: stevens@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu (Greg Stevens)
Subject: Re: Thought Question
Message-ID: <1995Jan6.170842.29457@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>
Sender: news@galileo.cc.rochester.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: prodigal.psych.rochester.edu
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York
References: <3ehfrl$21c@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1995Jan5.234325.23626@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> <3ei35h$9qr@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1995Jan6.031214.1563@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> <3eirh8$jht@prime.mdata.fi>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 95 17:08:42 GMT
Lines: 65
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.alife:1673 comp.ai.philosophy:24388 comp.ai:26280

In <3eirh8$jht@prime.mdata.fi> jsand@mits.mdata.fi (Jan Sand) writes:
>In article <1995Jan6.031214.1563@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>,
>Greg Stevens <stevens@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu> wrote:

>>Indeed.  I'm just exploring some of the consequences of taking the platonic
>>view to its extreme.  I don't believe it, I just think it is interesting.
>>I was merely suggesting that one consider how one would react to the
>>notion of "We are all simply embodiments of a preexisting algorithm,"
>>as that statement is an implication of an extreme form of platonic
>>philosophy.  I think it is interesting to think about things that way,
>>though I disagree with it in the same way I don't think numbers exist
>>or were "discovered," but merely that they are social constructs.

>Although I find myself in close sympathy with the general totality of the
>arguments, the word "social" in the last sentence irritates me. 

I was being sloppy.  I should have said "social and biological," upon
reflection.

>Perceptions
>of reality are, at beginning, an individual enterprise. 

Yes, and individual organisms respond according to two things: innate
responses that are biologically predetermined and built in, and learned
responses that are a function of their environment.  I was thinking of
numbers as being learned and from the environment, and I characterized it
as social because I felt that a lot of the learning of numbers has to
do with having other organisms in the environment.  However, now that you
mention it, there is probably a strong influence on the development of 
numbers from the basic, innate way our systems process data.

>I also assume
>some indeterminate generality as a matrix for our existance but what
>elements the individual abstracts from that generality to construct
>his or her  (damnit, isn't there a polite single term one can use without
>implying sexuality?) 

"what elements individuals abstract from that genereality to construct their"

>personal reality is quite individual and, I
>believe, uses the mechanics of gestalt. 

In what way does it use mechanics of gestalt?  I am interested in your viewe
on this. Personally, I see individuals abtracting and responding based on
two things, listed above, which will be highly individual because each
person's experiences are highly individual, they are not uncoupled from
envirnoment, including social environment.

>The platonic constructs which may seem somehow eternal are
>actually gestalts around which we mold energy inputs and, 
>although they must have a commonality amongst humans to 
>permit social interaction, they are essentially individual
>constructs to permit us to survive.

I think I see your point here, though I would be fascinated to hear 
your definition of "gestalts" as used above.  Again, when I say something
is a "social" construct, I am not denying that it functions within the
individual, merely trying to point out that that they arise in the
individual from its structural coupling with other individuals.  Perhaps
I wasn't clear.

Greg Stevens

stevens@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu

