From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!access.usask.ca!alberta!aunro!ukma!wupost!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.edu!uc.msc.edu!shamash!map Tue Nov 26 12:31:01 EST 1991
Article 1449 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!access.usask.ca!alberta!aunro!ukma!wupost!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.edu!uc.msc.edu!shamash!map
>From: map@svl.cdc.com (Mark Peters)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Animal Intelligence vs Human Intelligence
Message-ID: <38108@shamash.cdc.com>
Date: 20 Nov 91 22:38:44 GMT
References: <38039@shamash.cdc.com> <1991Nov19.000813.26477@spss.com> <38079@shamash.cdc.com> <1991Nov20.173143.6419@spss.com>
Sender: usenet@shamash.cdc.com
Reply-To: map@svl.cdc.com
Organization: Control Data Corporation, Silicon Valley Operations
Lines: 66

In <1991Nov20.173143.6419@spss.com> markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:

>In article <38079@shamash.cdc.com> map@svl.cdc.com writes:
>>But I didn't say that an infant's learning "... does not involve
>>consciousness," [....]   

>No, but you said it "happens without conscious intervention," which sounds
>about the same in my book.

I guess I'm not making myself clear.  What the infant does in this
context is not the same as what an adult does when he is trying to
solve a crossword puzzle, for example.  The adult knows that there is
a problem to be solved, he knows what the problem is, and he knows
that a certain (mental) course of action is required of him, a course
that he must *choose* to follow if he wants to solve the puzzle.
By contrast, the infant exploring his surroundings knows none of this,
particularly during the time between birth and when it gains a stable
awareness of reality, i.e., when it is developing its perceptual faculty.

>>Of *course* infants learn via exploration and experimentation, but this
>>is not what I'm talking about.  What you are talking about is an
>>infant who has already reached the perceptual level, i.e., who's
>>brain has already "learned" to recognize entities [....]

>What I'm saying is precisely that this matter of perception depends on
>that exploration.  The child's recognition of its mother or its Bart Simpson
>doll would not occur, or would occur later or deficiently, if it were not
>for its tactile/motor/social exploration.  

It still looks like you are confusing percepts and concepts.  Perception
gives us awareness of "things," while conception lets us identify what  
those things are.  A child who is aware of the colorful, soft, object
it has in its hands has reached the perceptual level, but a child who
knows that object is a "Bart Simpson Doll" has reached the conceptual
level.  All I'm saying is that mere awareness of objects is given to us 
automatically by our nervous systems thru the sheer experience of having
sensations, but conceptualizing that awareness is not.

>[How can a child recognize objects before it has the concept of ]
>[object permanence?]                   

Recognition of objects (i.e., merely being aware that there are objects),
happens long, long, before grasping the concept of "object permanence,"
and it *must*.  After all, how could one wonder "Are objects permanent?"
before one is aware that objects exist?  A child would have to be fairly
far into the conceptual realm before it would even occur to him that
object permanence is even an issue - to the child (as it should be to
adults) object permanence is self-evident.

>           The infant must learn perception in the first place, must learn
>that there is a world, that its senses are telling it something about it,
>and what exactly that is-- a much bigger task, and one that requires both
>active exploration and heavy thinking. 

I agree, but the progression should be: "There is a world," "There are
things in the world" (i.e., perception), "Something I do puts me into
contact with that world" (i.e., my senses tell me something), "That
particular thing is a Bart Simpson doll" (i.e., what exactly that is).
The child must get the first three steps of the progression implicitly
before it reaches the conceptual realm, i.e., before it reaches the
final step in the progression.  The "heavy thinking" you speak of
happens only at the conceptual level.
--
Mark A. Peters                              ****** ======================
Control Data Corporation                    ****** == "What a save!!!" ==
Internet: map@svl.cdc.com                   ****** == "What an idea!!" ==


