Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!njin!princeton!phoenix!eliot
From: eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot Handelman)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: "Emotion" vs. "Understanding" (was: Re: emergent properties)
Message-ID: <3344@idunno.Princeton.EDU>
Date: 14 Oct 90 23:01:52 GMT
References: <3129@idunno.Princeton.EDU> <15268@venera.isi.edu> <3679@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU>
Sender: news@idunno.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Shitson University, New Crapsey
Lines: 25

In article <3679@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> minsky@media-lab.media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) writes:
;Once we give up the single-self idea,
;we see that there can be no such thing as "momentary mental time" --
;and no such thing as the "here and now" of pre-scientific thinking.

;each sub-agency of the mind can - and must - construct
;its own model/theory of what happened recently.  

;Anyway, distrust arguments based on "here and now" experience, unless
;they are accompanied by some sort of systems description of how
;they're suppose to work.

Why should I? I distrust "systems descriptions" as a substitute for
analysis. As Adorno put it, "the force of consciousness extends to
the delusion of consciousness ... regression of consciousness is a product
of its lack of self-reflection." One can, in other words, easily
verify Minsky's "theories" (if these are what they are) by becoming
Minsky's theories.

And regarding "pre-scientific thinking," I distrust invovations of
scientific authority where none obtain; and I distrust claims supported
by this appeal to authority that begin with "anyhow," or smuggle in
a "and must" into speculative (and possibly self-deluding, as above) 
claims.  It is NOT a matter of "anyhow." It is a matter of demonstration, 
which is lacking here.