Xref: utzoo sci.misc:1179 talk.philosophy.misc:957
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sunybcs!bingvaxu!vu0112
From: vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Cliff Joslyn)
Newsgroups: sci.misc,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: The nature of reality.
Message-ID: <1005@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu>
Date: 27 Mar 88 18:57:52 GMT
References: <343@thirdi.UUCP> <732@actnyc.UUCP> <356@thirdi.UUCP> <27440@linus.UUCP> <363@thirdi.UUCP> <746@actnyc.UUCP> <371@thirdi.UUCP> <2960@sfsup.UUCP>
Reply-To: vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Cliff Joslyn)
Organization: SUNY Binghamton, NY
Lines: 55

In article <2960@sfsup.UUCP> glg@/guest4/glgUUCP (xt1112-G.Gleason) writes:
>In article <371@thirdi.UUCP> sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes:
>>>New territory cannot really be *inferred* from a map any more than the
>>>existence of New Jersey is implicit in the existence of Staten Island.
>
>>I don't really understand this point.  We make models of the universe all the
>>time and predict hitherto unobserved phenomena from them by extrapolation.
>>That is a principal means of discovery.
>
>Sure, we try to predict what will happen, or what we will discover
>sometimes, but are rarely very successful.  

Um, I really have to agree w/Sarge here.  To my mind, the primary
(only?) use of information (i.e.  knowledge, "maps") is in terms of
prediction.  This is true at a vast number of levels.  When the dog
learns to salivate at the bell, it is acquiring information (augmenting
its map) with which it predicts the future: when it hears a bell, it
predicts food.  When I have a good theory, it is informative in that I
can use it to make predictions about experiments in the future.  The
cell is full of information (genetic "maps") about the state of the
world, etc.  When certain conditions happen, it produces an enzyme,
"predicting" that that enzyme will be useful.  At a common sense level,
when I walk into a dark room that I know very well, I use my knowledge
(literally a visual image, map) to predict the location of furniture and
avoid obstacles. 

On the contrary to Gerry, these kinds of predictions are overwhelmingly
common and succesful.  It's just the exceptions that stand out that make
it appear otherwise.

>The more succussful way of
>being-in-the-world is not predicting, but spontaneous.  With a clear
>mind we confront new situations ready to flow with events.  Learning
>shows up in our ability to interpret events, and synthesize actions
>in respnse.  When learning is complete, action is spontaneous, and
>we are not even conscious of what is happening.  

I agree to the extent that you limit information and prediction to
conscious events.  My examples above show otherwise.  There is a complex
interaction between the conscious and the unconsciuos, and sometimes
conscious knowledge and decision making are necessary.  To advocate not
using conscious prediction and decision, but rather a kind of
non-thinking going-with-the-flow, can be a prescription for disaster. 
That is in fact the world situation now: not predicting global warming,
not predicting global debt, not predicting population growth.  

Skill is nothing without wisdom, and vice versa. 

>Gerry Gleason

O---------------------------------------------------------------------->
| Cliff Joslyn, Professional Cybernetician 
| Systems Science Department, SUNY Binghamton, New York
| vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu
V All the world is biscuit shaped. . .