Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!emory!mephisto!prism!chmsr!kirlik
From: kirlik@chmsr.gatech.edu (Alex Kirlik)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: emergent properties
Keywords: Sparseness_Theory
Message-ID: <14517@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Date: 4 Oct 90 04:05:41 GMT
References: <3499@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> <1990Oct3.183522.17076@riacs.edu> <3549@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> <45348@apple.Apple.COM> <3560@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU>
Sender: news@prism.gatech.EDU
Reply-To: kirlik@chmsr.UUCP (Alex Kirlik)
Organization: Center for Human-Machine Systems Research
Lines: 44

In article <3560@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> minsky@media-lab.media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) writes:
>the world of beauty that is, in my view, barren -- because it is based
>on little parts of the brain paralyzing the big parts.  It is no
>accident, I say, that people can say so little about why beauty is so
>great and powerful.  It is, I claim, because there's almost nothing
>much to say.  You can't keep your eye off that girl because of certain
>curves.  You have no choice, because your little curve-detector truns
>off your huge choice-engines.  You can't bear the absurdity and
>shallowness of this, and so write thousands of years of stupid poems
>praising flowers (which you appreciate probably LESS intensely than a
>honeybee) and likening women (with real brains) to them.  Beauty, fah.
>
>Why don't the students argue more?

Ok, as a perpetual student I'm goaded.  You say the glorious aspect of
humanity is thinking, and since you go right to a discussion of choice
engines, I presume you don't mean thinking for thinking sake (whatever
that might mean) but thinking as it serves choice, ultimately as it
rves behavior and its attendent consequences.  Evolutionarily, 
thinking could have only evolved only if it contributed to successful
behavior in some way, and this is the "reason" we have "thinking."
Now to continue along these lines, thinking serves successful behavior
and is therefore glorious to the extent of its contribution here.

Now here's where I have problems.  What measure are we going to use
to measure success, that is, who has got the inside track on what I
should value, what the "utilities" in my choice engine should be?
Will an understanding of the mind/brain assist in this task?  I think
not.  I can choose to live in an ugly barren place or I can choose to
live in what I take to be a beautiful place.  Now you come along and
tell me don't choose the beautiful place, you only think it's beautiful
because those ancient curve detectors are firing up a storm, and hey
you're a smart guy, you want to rise above that kind of thinking don't
you?  For the life of me I don't see why should.d.

So I like pea soup, I like a flower, I like to copulate. Who are you
to tell me what I really *should* like.


Alex 

UUCP:	kirlik@chmsr.UUCP
        {backbones}!gatech!chmsr!kirlik
INTERNET:	kirlik@chmsr.gatech.edu