The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: In the Beginning We see Dogginess, not Fido  (Read 3586 times)

Offline coberst

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 292
    • View Profile
In the Beginning We see Dogginess, not Fido
« on: 20/11/2008 23:09:21 »
In the Beginning We see Dogginess, not Fido

A father tells of brushing his shoes when his child comes in and wants to help.  The child holds the brush, imitates his father’s motions, walks out, and comes back with his hair brush to help again.

Cognitive science has introduced a new way of viewing the world and our self by declaring a new paradigm which is called the embodied mind. The primary focus is upon the fact that there is no mind/body duality but that there is indeed an integrated mind and body. The mind and body are as integrated as is the heart and the cardiovascular system.  Mind and body form a gestalt (a structure so integrated as to constitute a functional unit with properties not derivable by summation of its parts).

The human thought process is dominated by the characteristic of our integrated body. The sensorimotor neural network is an integral part of mind. The neural network that makes movement and perception possible is the same network that processes our thinking.

The unconscious categories that guide our human response to the world are constructed in the same way as are the categories that make it possible of other animals to survive in the world.  We form categories both consciously and unconsciously.

Why do we feel that both our consciously created and unconsciously created categories fit the world?

Our consciously formed concepts fit the world, more or less, because we consciously examine the world with our senses and our reason and classify that world into these concepts we call categories.

Our unconsciously formed categories are a different matter. Our unconsciously formed categories fit our world because these basic-level categories “have evolved to form at least one important class of categories that optimally fit our bodily experiences of entities and certain extremely important differences in the natural environment”.

Our perceptual system has little difficulty distinguishing between dogs and cows or rats and squirrels. Investigation of this matter makes clear that we distinguish most readily those folk versions of biological genera, i.e. those “that have evolved significantly distinct shapes so as to take advantage of different features of their environment.”

 If we move down to subordinate levels of the biological hierarchy we find the distinguishing ability deteriorates quickly. It is more difficult to distinguish one species of elephant from another than from distinguishing an elephant from a buffalo. It is easy to distinguish a boat from a car but more difficult distinguishing one type of car from another.

“Consider the categories chair and car which are in the middle of the category hierarchies furniture—chair—rocking chair and vehicle—car—sports car. In the mid-1970s, Brent Berlin, Eleanor Rosch, Carolyn Mervis, and their coworkers discovered that such mid-level categories are cogently “basic”—i.e. they have a kind of cognitive priority, as contrasted with “superordinate” categories like furniture and vehicle and with “subordinate” categories like rocking chair and sports car” (Berlin et al 1974 “Principles of Tzeltal Plant Classification”; Mervis and Rosch 1981 Categorization of Natural Objects, “Annual Review of Psychology” 32: 89-115))

The differences between basic-level and non basic-level categories is based upon bodily characteristics. The basic-level categories are dependent upon gestalt perception, sensorimotor programs, and mental images. We can easily see that these facts make it the case that classical metaphysical realism cannot be true; the properties of many categories are mediated by the body rather than determined directly by a mind-independent reality.

“Try the following thought experiment: Close your eyes and picture a chair.  Now, close your eyes and try to picture a furniture.  You cannot—at least not one that isn’t a basic level object such as a lamp, table, or chair.  The reasons are, first, that one can perceive lamps, tables, or chairs in terms of a single overall shape, but there is no overall shape for pieces of furniture in general…Second we have special motor programs for interacting with basic-level objects such as lamps, tables, and chairs but no motor program for pieces of furniture in general.”

In humans basic level categories are developed primarily based upon our bodily configuration and its interrelationship with the environment.  For other animals almost all, if not all, categories are basic-level categories.

Quotes from “A Clearing in the Forest: Law, Life, and Mind” by Steven L. Winter


 

lyner

  • Guest
In the Beginning We see Dogginess, not Fido
« Reply #1 on: 22/11/2008 16:38:33 »
If it ain't cognitive Science, what is it?
It is highly relevant, scientifically, to establish the mechanism of consciousness.

(This was a reply to a post which has, since, been deleted.)
« Last Edit: 23/11/2008 00:14:24 by sophiecentaur »
 

Offline nicephotog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 387
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • H h H h H h H h H h
    • View Profile
    • Freeware Downloads
In the Beginning We see Dogginess, not Fido
« Reply #2 on: 23/11/2008 10:24:40 »
I don't wish to be ambiguous or commit arbitrary comment to disseminate reasonable
logic in basis but classification is related somewhat to statistical proofing by
reference to the building blocks aggregated with a point score system of clearly
defined attributes that properties together commit an implicit level of coherence
to the templated class(classification) it can be allowed to belong.
If you identify to this, then "recognition" is as simple as gaining the required sets of
aspects presented together as the traits of the present summation of existant parts to
correlate a final singular classification that may or may not be the property hierarchy top.
 

lyner

  • Guest
In the Beginning We see Dogginess, not Fido
« Reply #3 on: 23/11/2008 13:01:34 »
Very learned-looking,  but what exactly are you saying?
Try structuring your post with shorter sentences and address the level of audience you might expect to find on a forum like this.
I don't mean to sound grumpy but this is supposed to be  fun exercise.
 

blakestyger

  • Guest
In the Beginning We see Dogginess, not Fido
« Reply #4 on: 23/11/2008 14:22:14 »
Very learned-looking,  but what exactly are you saying?
Try structuring your post with shorter sentences and address the level of audience you might expect to find on a forum like this.
I don't mean to sound grumpy but this is supposed to be  fun exercise.

Very true, a good point.
A lot of serious/interesting posts don't appear to fit the categories of the forum as it stands. There is perhaps, room for a category that deals with philosophy of science as well as some of the ethical issues surrounding science such as organ transplants, DNA databases, genetic research, GM and much, much more.
However it would not need to be a repository for religion, ID, the paranormal and all the other pseudo-sciences that creep into the forum discussions  and that detracts from their scientific content.
« Last Edit: 23/11/2008 14:26:50 by blakestyger »
 

lyner

  • Guest
In the Beginning We see Dogginess, not Fido
« Reply #5 on: 23/11/2008 15:04:25 »
It was the presentation, not the content, to which I was referring.
Perhaps nicephotog will reword his post and I can decide whether my first appreciation of it was correct.
 

Offline nicephotog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 387
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • H h H h H h H h H h
    • View Profile
    • Freeware Downloads
In the Beginning We see Dogginess, not Fido
« Reply #6 on: 24/11/2008 07:44:02 »
...down to subordinate levels of the biological hierarchy we find the distinguishing ability deteriorates quickly...
Quite seriously i believe the disintegration of ability down the life form levels(biometrically) to make clear classifications and recognition is due simply to two points,
They cannot mechanically or sensorilly achieve that humans can upon the world around them, stopping them from learning beyond what they see in the use of that they are in contact with.
One is their mechanical ability to use, and from that then their motive to care about it.


Answer to sophiecentaur:
It was meant as alike a "wise crack"
These are the main bulk of the descriptive phrases words used of the process of discerning recognition your speaking
primary focus .... not derivable by summation of its parts)... perception...form categories both consciously and unconsciously....senses and our reason and classify that world into these concepts...extremely important differences[differentiation]...distinguishing ability...

...distinguishing an elephant from a buffalo...
about sums that up as to why the first line of my post contained some particular words  =ambiguous,arbitrary,disseminate= .

One of the reasons for being interested in this post is because i have trained animals from hand with some real success, actually so much so i stopped training a pair of dogs as sheep dogs because they require the true suite of national or world known commands for their use when i was around twenty and the book containing them cost $80 at the time.
« Last Edit: 24/11/2008 07:49:12 by nicephotog »
 

lyner

  • Guest
In the Beginning We see Dogginess, not Fido
« Reply #7 on: 24/11/2008 17:26:48 »
To return to the original post; There is less of an intellectual task to recognise a particular dog - a one to one mapping of every feature onto our fido memory (+/- some error) - than to recognise that a black great dane is the same sort of animal as fido, the white long haired terrier but that a fox isn't.

A zebra will spot a predator amongst a load of other game animals and it will also recognise its foal. It needs both of these abilities.
Bird are pretty dumb, though; a male robin will attack a red breast on a stick in the same way as it attacks a rival male on his territory but it 'knows' its mate.

It seems to be a 'need to know' condition. Animals learn to recognise what they need to - be it general or specific - and don't waste energy with anything else.

Perhaps it is pointless speculation which demonstrates TRUE intellect.
A pat on the back for us all, I think.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

In the Beginning We see Dogginess, not Fido
« Reply #7 on: 24/11/2008 17:26:48 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums