From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!jupiter!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.edu!uc.m Tue Nov 19 11:10:45 EST 1991
Article 1384 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!jupiter!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.edu!uc.m
sc.edu!shamash!map
>From: map@svl.cdc.com (Mark Peters)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Animal Intelligence vs Human Intelligence
Message-ID: <38039@shamash.cdc.com>
Date: 18 Nov 91 20:04:27 GMT
References: <37859@shamash.cdc.com> <1991Nov14.202756.18746@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com> <37995@shamash.cdc.com> <1991Nov15.235744.25719@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Sender: usenet@shamash.cdc.com
Reply-To: map@svl.cdc.com
Organization: Control Data Corporation, Silicon Valley Operations
Lines: 49

In <1991Nov15.235744.25719@en.ecn.purdue.edu> krom@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Kevin M Krom) writes:

>In article <37995@shamash.cdc.com> map@svl.cdc.com writes:
>>If you are refering to the fact that the eye is constantly moving, even
>>when we think we are holding it still, then this illustrates nicely
>>exactly what I'm saying - I don't have to do anything for this to happen,
>>i.e., it happens automatically.  The point is, nobody has to teach me
>>how to see, or how to hear, or how to taste,  I just do it.  I don't need a 
>>"method" to do these correctly, but I definitely need a method to think
>>correctly (e.g., logic), and I have to *choose* to learn and follow that
>>method.

>Not really.  The basic sensations of sight, hearing, taste, etc... are 
>inherent to everybody, but how these sensations are interpreted are all 
>learned.  Either your enviroment (i.e. other people) helps you order your 
>sensations into something usable, or you have to learn it yourself.  
>Either way, in order to say that a particular pattern of light causing 
>stimulation on your retina corresponds to a particular object is a learned 
>response.  [Stuff about computer pattern recognition deleted for space]

It is difficult from what you write to tell whether you are refering
strictly to perception (awareness of entities) or at least partly to
conception (e.g., knowing that the furry thing running around on the
floor is a "dog").  

Perception is a *fully* automatic faculty that is "learned" only in the
sense that the brain requires lots of exposure to reality (via sensations)
in order to stabilize our view of it.  This "learning" happens without
any conscious effort on our parts, in fact, it happens before we've
developed our capacity to expend such effort.

In the first few (x <= 3 ?) years of life, an infant is bombarded by a vast 
number of sensations, and its brain "learns" to recognize entities from this.
This "learning" happens without conscious intervention on the part of the
infant, and yields awareness of entities, i.e., of distinct objects with
definite shapes, sizes, and other attributes.

Pattern recognition is *not* the same as either perception or conception.
The brain probably is capable of some pattern recognition at the perceptual
(i.e., automatic) level, and perhaps this is even a prerequisite of 
perception.  At the conceptual level, we are definitely capable of 
pattern recognition, but this ability isn't limited to physical patterns
(e.g., we can see patterns in complex number strings, or we can see
patterns in social systems of a particular type).

--
Mark A. Peters                              ****** ======================
Control Data Corporation                    ****** == "What a save!!!" ==
Internet: map@svl.cdc.com                   ****** == "What an idea!!" ==


