Harrison Danneskjold Posted March 11, 2014 Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 So if you haven't guessed yet, I'm attempting to extend the ITOE into a full-fledged theory of the mind. I intend to write a book in which this is already common knowledge. To that end I have a provisional theory. To wit: 1- All cognition is built up of choices 2- All 'choice' is made of unequal alternatives 3- Most alternatives are hypothetical (the others directly self-evident) 4- All inequality-of-alternatives stems from underlying values 5- All values stem from axiomatic values (hunger, thirst, pleasure, pain); all derivative values are recursive elaborations 6- All hypotheticals are composed of concepts 7- All concepts are reducible to [something] In seven I know that concepts are reducible to percepts; I'm attempting to get beneath those. My goal is to identify some fundamental unit of cognition (which everything else is reducible to, in various compositions). Now the few qualitatively unique things in 1-7 should ultimately be reducible to something more fundamental (probably sensorimotor constellations) but I've been wasting time worrying that I may have missed something. And then I realized that if I have missed something, it won't last long here! --- So I am contending that 1-7 can describe every single thing the human mind does, without exception. Am I wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted March 11, 2014 Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 To contend that 1-7 can describe 'every single thing' the human mind does, 'without exception', strikes me as bordering on the perimeter of omniscience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted March 11, 2014 Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 Before percepts is just undifferentiated sense data unless you are implying there is an intermediate step/process? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Danneskjold Posted March 11, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 To contend that 1-7 can describe 'every single thing' the human mind does, 'without exception', strikes me as bordering on the perimeter of omniscience. Exactly. I realize that I'm holding myself to an unrealistic standard but it's very important that I get it right the first time; the purpose I have in mind requires nothing less than that. So I figure that if I leave my theories here as I work, any blatant errors will be pointed out in no time flat. That allows me to focus on other parts of the question and effectively accomplish two things at the same time. So I'm going to add to the sweeping generalizations and extend the present ones, over time. If you think of anything which doesn't fit into the pattern, by all means- say so! Before percepts is just undifferentiated sense data unless you are implying there is an intermediate step/process? Absolutely. It isn't a conscious step, usually. When you see an object you perceive it as just that- an immediate percept. But then, you don't stop to think about what your mind does in order to read, either. . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Danneskjold Posted March 11, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 I have to find the fundamental 'unit' of all mental actions; the thing (or type of thing) which everything else is reducible to. This means that I'm going to have to figure out how sensations are built into percepts, as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted March 12, 2014 Report Share Posted March 12, 2014 I'm assuming your book is going to be largely philosophical but you can correct me if I'm wrong. So philosophically it can be said you have sensations and then the mind processes them into percepts but it seems to me that *how* the actual transition takes place would be a matter of science only. I'm open to possibly being wrong here though. For what it's worth, mostly based on assumptions of the speed of this transition that process is most likely a result of the hard wiring of the nervous system (specific routing) and a function that the specific region of the brain performs on the sense data as it its incoming to it's designated area before being rerouted to the conceptual processing regions of the brain. Or is it that you want to name the sense data while it is in transit between the nervous system as a sensation but before it arrives and transforms to a percept? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Danneskjold Posted March 12, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 12, 2014 (edited) For what it's worth, mostly based on assumptions of the speed of this transition that process is most likely a result of the hard wiring of the nervous system (specific routing) and a function that the specific region of the brain performs on the sense data as it its incoming to it's designated area before being rerouted to the conceptual processing regions of the brain. Perhaps. But I'm attempting to understand the same thing which neuroscience studies (and in roughly the same way)- except introspectively. Edited March 12, 2014 by Harrison Danneskjold Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Danneskjold Posted March 12, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 12, 2014 All of a man's best and worst (for him) features stem from his mind It is possible to philosophically dissect and understand men's minds The better you understand any thing, the better you can control it You are a man with the capacity for introspection The necessary conclusion to draw from these Objectivist ideas is that it is not only possible to dissect your own mind; it is necessary to thriving. Now I write science fiction and it seems clear that if enough people realized this, over a sufficient span of time, a full-fledged science would develop out of it (it would be like psychodynamics except, you know, with referents that exist). I want to portray such a thing; it would be something truly beautiful. But I want to do it properly, so I've identified this fundamental unit of cognition as the bare minimum that requires. So whether that's ultimately a scientific or philosophical issue doesn't particularly concern me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted March 12, 2014 Report Share Posted March 12, 2014 Ahhh I thought you were trying to write a technical book extending ITOE. I misread the second sentence. Okay then I can understand now why it wouldn't matter if it was philosophical or scientific then. Not trying to be negative on this but I'm not sure this can be understood in detail introspectively beyond what has been written, at least the process that switches sense data into percepts. But I would love to be proven wrong on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theestevearnold Posted March 12, 2014 Report Share Posted March 12, 2014 I have to find the fundamental 'unit' of all mental actions; the thing (or type of thing) which everything else is reducible to. Consciousness. (And implicit in consciousness is existence.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted March 13, 2014 Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 Harrison said: Perhaps. But I'm attempting to understand the same thing which neuroscience studies (and in roughly the same way)- except introspectively. How much knowledge could one gain of a video cameras circuitry by watching its display without ever seeing anything but? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Danneskjold Posted March 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 Consciousness. (And implicit in consciousness is existence.) Yes. I'm viewing it as "awareness" for this project but that's accurate. It can't be viewed as a unit though, because: How much knowledge could one gain of a video cameras circuitry by watching its display without ever seeing anything but? None. I have no concern whatsoever with the circuitry, though; I want to understand the program it executes (beyond the fact that it is always the same program and that it executes). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Danneskjold Posted March 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 (edited) 1- All cognition is built up of choices 2- All 'choice' is made of unequal alternatives 3- Most alternatives are hypothetical (the others directly self-evident) 4- All inequality-of-alternatives stems from underlying values 5- All values stem from axiomatic values (hunger, thirst, pleasure, pain); all derivative values are recursive elaborations 6- All hypotheticals are composed of concepts 7- All concepts are reducible to analogies 8- "Analogy" is contextual equivalence; the mental isolation of two things [traits, percepts, sensations] from all others, and their subsequent comparison 9- The difference between analogy and association is identical to the difference between denotation and connotation; similarity and contextual identity Edited March 13, 2014 by Harrison Danneskjold Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Danneskjold Posted March 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 (edited) 7- All concepts are reducible to analogies 8- "Analogy" is contextual equivalence; the mental isolation of two things [traits, percepts, sensations] from all others, and their subsequent comparison 9- The difference between analogy and association is identical to the difference between denotation and connotation; similarity and contextual identity 7- All concepts are reducible to sensorimotor models [formed analogically] 8- A mental model of any entity includes all relevant details, with the particulars of its formation unspecified When I type "dog" you don't think of your most recent dog-related memory; you think of a dog with yourself omitted from the picture. Edited March 13, 2014 by Harrison Danneskjold Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Danneskjold Posted March 15, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2014 Never mind. I've been going about it all wrong. I still believe I'm right about everything I've asserted thus far- except in its absolute necessity to the goal. Thank you for your attention; I'm sorry for any time I may have wasted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.