Seeking the Source of Reason

[coberst]

Seeking the Source of Reason

Let us imagine how human reason might have been born. The question seeking an answer is: how can natural selection (evolution) account for human reason?

Somewhere back in time we must encounter the signs of reason within the capacity of our ancestors. What is the essence of reason? The necessary and sufficient conditions for reason are conceptual and inference ability. To conceptualize is to create neural structures that can be used to facilitate making if-then inferences.

Imagine an early water dwelling creature, which must survive utilizing only the ability to move in space and to discriminate light and shadow. The sense of a shadow can indicate a friend or foe and can indicate eat or not eat. Assume that this sensibility has a total range of two feet, i.e. a shadow within a radius of two feet of the creature can be detected.

A shadow comes within sensible range, the creature can ‘decide’ by the size of the shadow whether the shadow is friend or foe and as a possible lunch. If the shadow is large the creature must ‘run’ if it is small the creature might ‘decide’ to pursue.

It seems obvious to me this simple creature must have the ability to reason in order to survive. This creature must be capable of ascertaining friend/foe and eat/not eat. It must also determine how to move based upon that conceptual structure. It must be able to make inferences from these concepts, these neural structures of what is sensed, to survive. This creature must have the capacity to perceive, conceive, infer, and move correctly in space in order to survive.

Continuing my imaginary journey; I have a friend who is the project engineer on a program to design robots. I ask this friend if it is possible for the computer model of a robot in action can perform the essential operations required for reasoning. She says, “I think so, but I will ask my robot simulation to do the things that are considered to be reasoning”.

She performs this operation and tells me that it is within the capacity of the robot movement system to also do reasoning. I conclude that if the sensorimotor control system of a creature also has the ability to reason, then biology would not recreate such a capacity and thus this sensorimotor capacity is also a reasoning capacity that evolves into our human capacity to reason.

Does this imaginary journey compel you to shout with joy at discovering the source of human reason?

[Foster Zygote]

No.

[Anacoluthon64]

No.Ditto, though it does raise some further interesting questions. Did you, Foster Zygote, in fact help Patrick McGoohan escape (http://cd.ciao.co.uk/I_Helped_Patrick_McGoohan_Escape_Times_The__604711 6)?

'Luthon64

[drkitten]

Somewhere back in time we must encounter the signs of reason within the capacity of our ancestors. What is the essence of reason? The necessary and sufficient conditions for reason are conceptual and inference ability. To conceptualize is to create neural structures that can be used to facilitate making if-then inferences.

Goodness. In that case, we've had "artificial reason" since the mid 1980s in the work of Rumelhart, McClelland, Sejnowski, et al.


A shadow comes within sensible range, the creature can ‘decide’ by the size of the shadow whether the shadow is friend or foe and as a possible lunch. If the shadow is large the creature must ‘run’ if it is small the creature might ‘decide’ to pursue.

It seems obvious to me this simple creature must have the ability to reason in order to survive.


Not at all obvious. Pattern classification is demonstrably not the same as "reasoning." The "connectionism" experiments in the 1980s made this abundantly clear, although Minsky's response to proto-connectionism in the 1960s made essentially the same point. And really, all you need to do is go back to Chomsky's response to Skinner.....

[Foster Zygote]

Ditto, though it does raise some further interesting questions. Did you, Foster Zygote, in fact help Patrick McGoohan escape (http://cd.ciao.co.uk/I_Helped_Patrick_McGoohan_Escape_Times_The__604711 6)?

'Luthon64

I'm afraid I just followed him around with a welding kit repairing cracked chassis tubes on his Super 7 and occasionally fending off those pesky white spheres.

Steven

P.S. If this is a music recommendation I'll have to check them out.

[Anacoluthon64]

P.S. If this is a music recommendation I'll have to check them out.Well, not so much a recommendation -- though the song is enjoyable and not a million miles from early Madness on acid with an out-of-tune zither -- as it is an oblique reference to your sig. You see, that dialogue snippet, plus some more, occurs towards the end of the song, and I'd mistakenly presumed that the song is where you had gotten it.

'Luthon64

[coberst]

Goodness. In that case, we've had "artificial reason" since the mid 1980s in the work of Rumelhart, McClelland, Sejnowski, et al.



Not at all obvious. Pattern classification is demonstrably not the same as "reasoning." The "connectionism" experiments in the 1980s made this abundantly clear, although Minsky's response to proto-connectionism in the 1960s made essentially the same point. And really, all you need to do is go back to Chomsky's response to Skinner.....


I would say that conceptualization and inference are the necessary and sufficient conditions for reasoning. It appears to me that both elements are necessary for the survival of this creature.

[drkitten]

I would say that conceptualization and inference are the necessary and sufficient conditions for reasoning.

And therefore, since we demonstrably have computer chips that are capable of both conceptualization and inference, computer chips "reason."

I deny sufficiency.

As, I believe, would almost anyone who works in cognitive science, psychology, computer science, or a swarm of related disciplines.

[Dark Jaguar]

if shadowsize > somenumber then
if shadowsize is equal to or < somenumber then

Add a million lines of code so that it can see shapes through duel mounted cameras to calculate "shadowsize", or less classes so you can calculate in-computer "shadowsizes" (or just toss your own numbers in there) and in the end you just ended up saying that after ALL that computing, THIS basic if then decision structure is what decides if something can "reason".

[coberst]

And therefore, since we demonstrably have computer chips that are capable of both conceptualization and inference, computer chips "reason."

I deny sufficiency.

As, I believe, would almost anyone who works in cognitive science, psychology, computer science, or a swarm of related disciplines.

So, you judge that computer chips reason. That is interesting.

[coberst]

if shadowsize > somenumber then
if shadowsize is equal to or < somenumber then

Add a million lines of code so that it can see shapes through duel mounted cameras to calculate "shadowsize", or less classes so you can calculate in-computer "shadowsizes" (or just toss your own numbers in there) and in the end you just ended up saying that after ALL that computing, THIS basic if then decision structure is what decides if something can "reason".


Whoo! you lost in the shadows.

[Dave1001]

There are different levels of reasoning, if this is what you call reason. Do simple viruses reason by creating mutations and then multiplying the mutations that are beneficial for new host situations? Do countries reason by having multiple political parties and rewarding and punishing the political parties with representation based on the degree to which they're able to satisfy their voting domestic populations? I doubt any of these forms of reasoning are experientially identical to a human's subjective experience of working through a logic problem or trying to talk their way out of a speeding ticket.

[coberst]

There are different levels of reasoning, if this is what you call reason. Do simple viruses reason by creating mutations and then multiplying the mutations that are beneficial for new host situations? Do countries reason by having multiple political parties and rewarding and punishing the political parties with representation based on the degree to which they're able to satisfy their voting domestic populations? I doubt any of these forms of reasoning are experientially identical to a human's subjective experience of working through a logic problem or trying to talk their way out of a speeding ticket.

Reasoning requires the ability to conceptualize and the ability to infer. It appears to me that any creature that moves in space must have the neural structure necessary to conceptualize and infer in order to survive, i.e. such creatures have the capacity to reason. It is this capacity that is the source of the human capacity to reason.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Reasoning requires the ability to conceptualize and the ability to infer. It appears to me that any creature that moves in space must have the neural structure necessary to conceptualize and infer in order to survive, i.e. such creatures have the capacity to reason. It is this capacity that is the source of the human capacity to reason.
Why on earth should movement in space require the ability to conceptualise and infer? Do me a favour. Bring your hand quickly towards your eyes. If you're like most of us, you blinked. Why? Did you conceptualise what might happen if your hand hit your eye and infer that you might want to close them? No, it's a reflex. It is a hard-wired response, a simple, efficient if-then statement. IF something rushes at eyes, THEN close eyelids.

Even in the movements you make that are based on your ability to coneptualise and infer, there is a great deal of mindless routine. Assume you feel the need to urinate. You conceptualise wetting your pants, infer that might be uncomfortable, and so decide to walk to a bathroom. Do you reason out each step along the way? No. Walking, by and large, is an automated subroutine. In tricky terrain you may put some more effort into it, but this reasoned activity of yours is being accomplished largely with no further reasoning. It just does.

Given, then, that a large portion of even human movement is not directly under the control of reason, is it impossible to consider a creature whose movements are nothing but reflex? It seems likely that this is not only the case but is necessarily the case; the brute physical reflexes and subroutines would need to be in place in evolutionary history before the reasoning mechanism that can choose when to use them could evolve.

[Anacoluthon64]

Reasoning requires the ability to conceptualize and the ability to infer. It appears to me that any creature that moves in space must have the neural structure necessary to conceptualize and infer in order to survive, i.e. such creatures have the capacity to reason. It is this capacity that is the source of the human capacity to reason.With this windborne seed I refute thee.

'Luthon64

[coberst]

Marquis..says--"Given, then, that a large portion of even human movement is not directly under the control of reason, is it impossible to consider a creature whose movements are nothing but reflex?"

I suspect a creature would not survive long merely on "reflex"!

[Wudang]

So, you judge that computer chips reason. That is interesting.

No, you do. :rolleyes:

[coberst]

With this windborne seed I refute thee.

'Luthon64

Windborne seeds might survive just drifing in the breeze but I suspect a creature would not. 'coberst2006'.

[coberst]

No, you do. :rolleyes:

Puzzlement???:rolleyes:

[RenaissanceBiker]

Source of Reason = Necessity

[Dancing David]

Since this seems to be an evolution question it raises the specter of determinsim, we can not determine why certain traits arise in most cases, and given the random nature of evolution in fact determinsim is most likely a blind alley.

For analogy we can discuss the walking vs. talking debate, many would like to see talking as the primary difference between humans and the other apes. which would be analogous to reason, but is we stop and think, the walking think might have led to the talking thing. Why?
Neotany. Due to the upright posture of early hominids it is likely that the brain case of the early hominids was too large to pass threough the more restricted pelvis. the solution that evolution might have developed is to have hominid babies born with smaller brains that then develop after birth.
So why does this possibly lead to larger brains? because this then is an area for selection to further exagerate an already selected trait. First you have neoptany which has a period of accelerated brain growth after birth, then the accelerated brain growth is chosen in the population and accentuated.

So in this scenario we first have ape like creature that are already fairly intelligen, then we have the upright posture selected for, then we have neotany selected for, then we have accelerated brain growth selected for.

So while it is nice to speculate as to why reason developed, that is generaly not the way evolution works. First you have the grab bag of traits, then you have a random process of selection, then you have developed traits that can then lead to other traits. To paraphrase S. Gould , evolution is a contingent branching structure, we can only see the path taken, we can not detrmine a reverse enginering for specific trait without taking that history as the strongest influence.

[coberst]

David

All living creatures categorize. All creatures, as a minimum, separate eat from no eat and friend from foe. As neural creatures tadpole and wo/man categorize. There are trillions of synaptic connections taking place in the least sophisticated of creatures and this multiple synapses must be organized in some way to facilitate passage through a small number of interconnections and thus categorization takes place. Great numbers of different synapses take place in an experience and these are subsumed in some fashion to provide the category eat or foe perhaps.

Our categories are what we consider to be real in the world: tree, rock, animal…Our concepts are what we use to structure our reasoning about these categories. Concepts are neural structures that are the fundamental means by which we reason about categories.


Humans and I suspect all creatures navigate in space through spatial-relations concepts. These concepts are the essence of our ability to function in space. These are not concepts that we can sense but they are the forms and inference patterns for our movement in space that we utilize unconsciously. We automatically ‘perceive’ an entity as being on, in front of, behind, etc. another entity.

The container schema is a fundamental spatial-relations concept that allows us to draw important inferences. This natural container format is the source for our logical inferences that are so obvious to us when we view Venn diagrams. If container A is in container B and B is in container C, then A is in C.

A container schema is a gestalt figure with an interior, an exterior, and a boundary—the parts make sense only as part of the whole. Container schemas are cross-modal—“we can impose a conceptual container schema on a visual scene…on something we hear, as when we conceptually separate out one part of a piece of music from another.”

“Image schemas have a special cognitive function: They are both perceptual and conceptual in nature. As such, they provide a bridge between language and reasoning on the one hand and vision on the other.”

Quotes from “Philosophy in the Flesh” and “Where Mathematics Comes From” Lakoff is coauthor of both.

[Dave1001]

Marquis..says--"Given, then, that a large portion of even human movement is not directly under the control of reason, is it impossible to consider a creature whose movements are nothing but reflex?"

I suspect a creature would not survive long merely on "reflex"!


Although I think you're conflating conscious, subjective cognitive reasoning with automated decision trees run at the most fundamental biological levels by things like gene expression and protein signaling.

But it raises an interesting question: do you think our individual cells reason? They are "creatures" that undergo "movement". I'm not raising this point to mock you, I'm sincerely curious.

[Anacoluthon64]

Windborne seeds might survive just drifing in the breeze but I suspect a creature would not. 'coberst2006'.You miss the point. Can a motile bacterium be said to exhibit rudiments of reason?

'Luthon64

[Marquis de Carabas]

Marquis..says--"Given, then, that a large portion of even human movement is not directly under the control of reason, is it impossible to consider a creature whose movements are nothing but reflex?"

I suspect a creature would not survive long merely on "reflex"!
Well, bully for your suspicions then. Any reason anybody should pay particular attention to them?

Sorry if that seems flippant; it's a reflex.

[coberst]

Dave1001

No

[coberst]

You miss the point. Can a motile bacterium be said to exhibit rudiments of reason?

'Luthon64

I do not know enough about a "motile bacterium" to answer.

[coberst]

Well, bully for your suspicions then. Any reason anybody should pay particular attention to them?

Sorry if that seems flippant; it's a reflex.

Yes!

[Wudang]

Puzzlement???:rolleyes:
(sigh) Drkitten is saying that by your argument computers can reason.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Yes!
And that reason is...?

I do not know enough about a "motile bacterium" to answer.
Well, let's see, motile means capable of moving spontaneously, and a bacterium is a single-celled lifeform. Work from there. It moves in space. Does reasoning occur in that single cell?

[nescafe]

Marquis..says--"Given, then, that a large portion of even human movement is not directly under the control of reason, is it impossible to consider a creature whose movements are nothing but reflex?"

I suspect a creature would not survive long merely on "reflex"!

:jaw-dropp
Most creatures survive just fine on reflex, thankyouverymuch.

[drkitten]

So, you judge that computer chips reason. That is interesting.

No. I deny that your necessary and sufficient conditions are in fact necessary and sufficient, since computer chips, which are generally considered not to reason, nevertheless fulfuil your necessary and sufficient conditions.

[coberst]

And that reason is...?


Well, let's see, motile means capable of moving spontaneously, and a bacterium is a single-celled lifeform. Work from there. It moves in space. Does reasoning occur in that single cell?

It is single cell and thus incapable of controled motion. The creatures I refer to have neural cells.

[coberst]

No. I deny that your necessary and sufficient conditions are in fact necessary and sufficient, since computer chips, which are generally considered not to reason, nevertheless fulfuil your necessary and sufficient conditions.

I disagree.

[Marquis de Carabas]

It is single cell and thus incapable of controled motion.
Yeah, you might want to read up on motile bacteria before you continue this discussion.

Finally, the behavioral response is temporal, not spatial. E. coli does not determine whether there is more attractant, say, in front than behind; rather, it determines whether the concentration increases when it moves in a particular direction. Studies of impulsive stimuli indicate that a cell compares the concentration observed over the past 1 s with the concentration observed over the previous 3 s and responds to the difference.

Source (http://www.aip.org/pt/jan00/berg.htm)

[nescafe]

It is single cell and thus incapable of controled motion. The creatures I refer to have neural cells.
You do not have to have neural cells to have controlled motion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxis).

[Cosmo]

I disagree.

Your one- and two-word responses are not particularly conducive to furthering this discussion.

[Meffy]

What a lot of fuss over so simple a question. coberst, did you bother to google for the answer? Never mind, here you are.

http://www.propellerheads.se/

I looooove me some Reason, and that's no lie.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I disagree.
Read up on computer chips as well, then.

[Anacoluthon64]

It is single cell and thus incapable of controled motion. The creatures I refer to have neural cells.I am confused. The title of this thread is "Seeking the Source of Reason," a theme pursued in the OP. If your inquisition is both earnest and honest, it would, I submit, be incumbent on you to scrutinise for consistency any proposed "Source of Reason" in its most incipient guise available.

If you assume "[t]he creatures ... have neural cells" you may already have overstepped a viable starting point for your thesis: where do the dividing lines of complexity occur that separate "reason" from "reflex" and "plain chemistry/physics?"

'Luthon64

[coberst]

What a lot of fuss over so simple a question. coberst, did you bother to google for the answer? Never mind, here you are.

http://www.propellerheads.se/

I looooove me some Reason, and that's no lie.

Does not sound like my kind of job

[coberst]

I am confused. The title of this thread is "Seeking the Source of Reason," a theme pursued in the OP. If your inquisition is both earnest and honest, it would, I submit, be incumbent on you to scrutinise for consistency any proposed "Source of Reason" in its most incipient guise available.

If you assume "[t]he creatures ... have neural cells" you may already have overstepped a viable starting point for your thesis: where do the dividing lines of complexity occur that separate "reason" from "reflex" and "plain chemistry/physics?"


'Luthon64


I certainly never oversteped any viable starting point.

[I less than three logic]

I certainly never oversteped any viable starting point.
Perhaps answering the question might prove useful.

snip... "where do the dividing lines of complexity occur that separate "reason" from "reflex" and "plain chemistry/physics?"

'Luthon64

[Anacoluthon64]

I certainly never oversteped any viable starting point.Mustela kathiah stirs again.

'Luthon64

[Wudang]

Coberst, you keep saying people should read more books. Have you ever cracked a fairly recent science book? It doesn't seem like it. You sound like a medieaval schoolman.

[coberst]

Coberst, you keep saying people should read more books. Have you ever cracked a fairly recent science book? It doesn't seem like it. You sound like a medieaval schoolman.

Here are some of my favorites

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn

Where Mathematics Comes From by Lakoff and Nunez

Philosophy in the Flesh by Lakoff and Johnson

[coberst]

Mustela kathiah stirs again.

'Luthon64

A standard technique for checking out new ideas is to create computer models of the idea and subject that model to simulated conditions to determine if the model behaves as does the reality. Such modeling techniques are used constantly in projecting behavior of meteorological parameters.

Neural computer models have shown that the types of operations required to perceive and move in space require the very same type of capability associated with reasoning. That is, neural models capable of doing all of the things that a body must be able to do when perceiving and moving can also perform the same kinds of actions associated with reasoning, i.e. inferring, categorizing, and conceiving.

Our understanding of biology indicates that the body has a marvelous ability to do as any handyman does, i.e. make do with what is at hand. The body would, it seems logical to assume, take these abilities that exist in all creatures that move and survive in space and with such fundamental capabilities reshape it through evolution to become what we now know as our ability to reason. The first budding of the reasoning ability exists in all creatures that function as perceiving, moving, surviving, creatures.

Cognitive science has, it seems to me, connected our ability to reason with our bodies in such away as to make sense out of connecting reason with our biological evolution in ways that Western philosophy has not done, as far as I know.

This info from "Philosophy in the Flesh" Lakoff and Johnson

[drkitten]

Here are some of my favorites

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn

Where Mathematics Comes From by Lakoff and Nunez

Philosophy in the Flesh by Lakoff and Johnson

That would be a "no," then.

None of those are "science" books. They're philosophy books -- and some are rather dated at that.

[Marquis de Carabas]

That is, neural models capable of doing all of the things that a body must be able to do when perceiving and moving can also perform the same kinds of actions associated with reasoning, i.e. inferring, categorizing, and conceiving.
If this is true of all neural models, and neural models are an accurate enough description of reality, then you must concede the reasoning ability of the motile bacteria.

The first budding of the reasoning ability exists in all creatures that function as perceiving, moving, surviving, creatures.
This is your main problem. The "first budding" of something is not that thing. You are right, in my opinion, that simple reflexes represent the evolutionary beginnings of what now is human reason; I would go further and say that human reason is really just a very complex system of simpler reflexes, but that's another argument. The point is, those beginning are still just that--beginnings. That the eye is largely believed to have evolved from a single photosensitive cell does not make a single photosensitive cell an eye.

[drkitten]

Neural computer models have shown that the types of operations required to perceive and move in space require the very same type of capability associated with reasoning. That is, neural models capable of doing all of the things that a body must be able to do when perceiving and moving can also perform the same kinds of actions associated with reasoning, i.e. inferring, categorizing, and conceiving.

Which again argues against your claim that the capacity to conceptualize and the ability to infer are both necessary and sufficient for "reasoning."

Because there's lots of things out there with the capacity to percieve and to move, but without any ability that would generally be recognized as "reasoning." If you agree with Lakoff that perception and motion implies the ability to infer and to categorize, then to infer and to categorize must not imply the ability to reason.

Lakoff's claim is actually rather different. He's claiming that many organisms have the capacity to perform the actions associated with reasoning. He's not claiming (as far as I can tell) either that they are actually performing these actions or that they are reasoning.

[Dark Jaguar]

coberst, you specifically listed exactly what qualities you think are sufficient for something to have "reason". You disagree that computers already meet those qualities.

Have you ever studied computer programming, at even a most BASIC level? (Pardon the pun... I know, even programmers hate such puns...) Even the most simplistic of decision structures fulfill your requirements for something to have reason. Thus, by your definition, computers are capable of reason.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Cob,

Google "Shakey the Robot".

[coberst]

This is your main problem. The "first budding" of something is not that thing.


But you are wrong. The fish fin was the budding human hand. Somewhere between the dawn of life and the present moment neural cells began to develop and thus slowly did the ability to reason.

[Marquis de Carabas]

But you are wrong. The fish fin was the budding human hand.
I am only wrong if fish fins are human hands.

:dl:

edited because that really didn't warrant a serious response

[coberst]

Which again argues against your claim that the capacity to conceptualize and the ability to infer are both necessary and sufficient for "reasoning."

Because there's lots of things out there with the capacity to percieve and to move, but without any ability that would generally be recognized as "reasoning." If you agree with Lakoff that perception and motion implies the ability to infer and to categorize, then to infer and to categorize must not imply the ability to reason.

Lakoff's claim is actually rather different. He's claiming that many organisms have the capacity to perform the actions associated with reasoning. He's not claiming (as far as I can tell) either that they are actually performing these actions or that they are reasoning.

Lakoff says that the neural modeling proved that the ability to infer and to conceptualize was inherent in the sensorimotor neural system and that a logical conclusion is that biology would not duplicate such ability when it already existed.

[coberst]

coberst, you specifically listed exactly what qualities you think are sufficient for something to have "reason". You disagree that computers already meet those qualities.

Have you ever studied computer programming, at even a most BASIC level? (Pardon the pun... I know, even programmers hate such puns...) Even the most simplistic of decision structures fulfill your requirements for something to have reason. Thus, by your definition, computers are capable of reason.

Matter of fact I have. I graduated as an electronics engineer in 1959 and immediately started working on a special purpose computer to be used in a battlefield air traffic control system. I had to redesign the hardwired program, this was before general purpose computers existed. This was before basic, this was in the domian, perhaps, of metaphysical.

The computer lacks a necessary component, it has no neural cells, which are a necessary component of the budding ability to reason.


Lakoff says that the neural modeling proved that the ability to infer and to conceptualize was inherent in the sensorimotor neural system and that a logical conclusion is that biology would not duplicate such an ability when it already existed.

[Anacoluthon64]

The computer lacks a necessary component, it has no neural cells, which are a necessary component of the budding ability to reason.If by "neural cells" you mean merely the ability to sense and relay certain pertinent physical aspects of the environment, e.g. temperatures, distances, images, etc., then you should know that such mechanical devices exist and can be made part of computerised control systems. An essential part of such a system is, of course, an algorithm (which may include fuzzy logic) for deciding ("inference") the appropriate remedial action when an unsuitable ("conceptualization") environment obtains. It is, alas, hard to see in what respect the system in this scenario differs from one in which purely reflex action occurs - i.e., some essence (the volitional, I think) is missing and seems to invalidate the claim that any "reasoning" has happened.

If, on the other hand, the term "neural cells" is taken to include (some of) the actual reasoning, then your thesis is tautological, viz.: "reasoning occurs where the appropriate and functioning mechanisms for it exist." Not very fruitful, I'm afraid.

So, precisely what properties, abilities and limitations do you ascribe to these "neural cells" that would allow us to distinguish them from the machinery that does the reasoning? For that matter, what in your view defines "reasoning?"

'Luthon64

[coberst]

If by "neural cells" you mean merely the ability to sense and relay certain pertinent physical aspects of the environment, e.g. temperatures, distances, images, etc., then you should know that such mechanical devices exist and can be made part of computerised control systems. An essential part of such a system is, of course, an algorithm (which may include fuzzy logic) for deciding ("inference") the appropriate remedial action when an unsuitable ("conceptualization") environment obtains. It is, alas, hard to see in what respect the system in this scenario differs from one in which purely reflex action occurs - i.e., some essence (the volitional, I think) is missing and seems to invalidate the claim that any "reasoning" has happened.

If, on the other hand, the term "neural cells" is taken to include (some of) the actual reasoning, then your thesis is tautological, viz.: "reasoning occurs where the appropriate and functioning mechanisms for it exist." Not very fruitful, I'm afraid.

So, precisely what properties, abilities and limitations do you ascribe to these "neural cells" that would allow us to distinguish them from the machinery that does the reasoning? For that matter, what in your view defines "reasoning?"

'Luthon64


I speak of neural cells like I speak of neural networks. I speak with little knowledge of neural physiology. My contact with this domain of knowledge comes from "Philosophy in the Flesh".

I am aware of the empirical evidence accumulated by neural scientist that proclaim that the neural network that is capable of controling the sensiory and motor movements also have the ability to infer and to conceptualize, which are the necessary and sufficient conditions for reasoning.

[Anacoluthon64]

I speak of neural cells like I speak of neural networks.You haven't adequately answered the questions I posed, but if it is truly your contention that a "neural cell" is functionally indistinguishable from a node in a neural network, then your argument forces you to agree that a neural network running on a computer does in fact reason once it receives input data. However, it is generally difficult to pinpoint accurately those factors and interrelationships that a complex computerised neural network reacts to, and this fact cannot be taken to mean that the neural network is not entirely algorithmic, i.e. operating reflexively.


I am aware of the empirical evidence accumulated by neural scientist that proclaim that the neural network that is capable of controling the sensiory and motor movements also have the ability to infer and to conceptualize, which are the necessary and sufficient conditions for reasoning.Which observations again raise the question, and moreover redouble the urgency of supplying an answer to it, of what differentiates the essence of "reasoning" as practised by motile bacilli from that of a human. Without a clear answer, your position is, as indicated earlier, tautological and therefore sterile.

'Luthon64

[Dancing David]

David

All living creatures categorize. All creatures, as a minimum, separate eat from no eat and friend from foe. As neural creatures tadpole and wo/man categorize. There are trillions of synaptic connections taking place in the least sophisticated of creatures and this multiple synapses must be organized in some way to facilitate passage through a small number of interconnections and thus categorization takes place. Great numbers of different synapses take place in an experience and these are subsumed in some fashion to provide the category eat or foe perhaps.

Perhaps is the operative term there, many creatures can not make the distinction, they eat that which is smaller and run from that which is begger. That does not involve a schema, in the way you are stating.

"There are trillions of synaptic connections "

That is not true of a mouse or other 'less sophisticated creature', categorization as you are discussing it is very high level cognition, that is not something that 'less sophiticated creatures' have the capacity for.


Our categories are what we consider to be real in the world: tree, rock, animal…Our concepts are what we use to structure our reasoning about these categories. Concepts are neural structures that are the fundamental means by which we reason about categories.

Actualy concepts are very high level cognition, most creature do not categorise in the way you use the word.



Humans and I suspect all creatures navigate in space through spatial-relations concepts.

That is a nice assumption, but it need not be true to navigate through space, simpler algorithims can be used.

These concepts are the essence of our ability to function in space. These are not concepts that we can sense but they are the forms and inference patterns for our movement in space that we utilize unconsciously. We automatically ‘perceive’ an entity as being on, in front of, behind, etc. another entity.

The container schema is a fundamental spatial-relations concept that allows us to draw important inferences. This natural container format is the source for our logical inferences that are so obvious to us when we view Venn diagrams. If container A is in container B and B is in container C, then A is in C.

A container schema is a gestalt figure with an interior, an exterior, and a boundary—the parts make sense only as part of the whole. Container schemas are cross-modal—“we can impose a conceptual container schema on a visual scene…on something we hear, as when we conceptually separate out one part of a piece of music from another.”

“Image schemas have a special cognitive function: They are both perceptual and conceptual in nature. As such, they provide a bridge between language and reasoning on the one hand and vision on the other.”

Quotes from “Philosophy in the Flesh” and “Where Mathematics Comes From” Lakoff is coauthor of both.

Thats all very nice, but it doesn't apply to where reason comes from, it applies to what we call reason, but involves high level cognition again.

You do not automaticaly percieve the spacial relations in a Venn diagram, they are learned through exposure and culture.

So your current argument starts with the most complex form of cognition and imposes it on 'less sophisticated creatures'.

You do not need reason for many of the things you are describing.

[Dancing David]

Reasoning requires the ability to conceptualize and the ability to infer. It appears to me that any creature that moves in space must have the neural structure necessary to conceptualize and infer in order to survive, i.e. such creatures have the capacity to reason. It is this capacity that is the source of the human capacity to reason.

Nice asumption and where is the research that supports it?

Movement through space does not require reason, sorry.

Despite your assertion, 'reflex' can be sufficient.

[Dancing David]

I do not know enough about a "motile bacterium" to answer.


You also don't know enough to conclude a mouse has reason because it moves in space?

[Dave1001]

That would be a "no," then.

None of those are "science" books. They're philosophy books -- and some are rather dated at that.

Neither non-scientific nor dated enough to explain his ideas or his approach to this topic, though.

[coberst]

You haven't adequately answered the questions I posed, but if it is truly your contention that a "neural cell" is functionally indistinguishable from a node in a neural network, then your argument forces you to agree that a neural network running on a computer does in fact reason once it receives input data. However, it is generally difficult to pinpoint accurately those factors and interrelationships that a complex computerised neural network reacts to, and this fact cannot be taken to mean that the neural network is not entirely algorithmic, i.e. operating reflexively.


Which observations again raise the question, and moreover redouble the urgency of supplying an answer to it, of what differentiates the essence of "reasoning" as practised by motile bacilli from that of a human. Without a clear answer, your position is, as indicated earlier, tautological and therefore sterile.

'Luthon64


Who said that a "a "neural cell" is functionally indistinguishable from a node in a neural network" I do not think I said that, if I did I take it back.


Who said that " motile bacilli" reasons. I do not think I said that and if I did, I take it back.

I think we must keep in mind several considerations.
1) If we accept Darwin's theory to be accurate we must find the budding ability to reason somewhere back in the world of creatures between first life and today.
2) To find that point we must recognize that we are looking for the cusp between instinct and reason.
3) We must settle on what are the necessary and sufficient elements of reasoning.
4) Technology can help us here and has by showing us that the nervious system capable of controling perception and motion has the ability to infer and to conceptualize.
5) Others that do not come to mind now. Oh yes we must recognize that when we find what we are looking for we will not see the creature reading the NYTimes.

[Dave1001]

Dealing with species that move, our OP brings up an interesting topic. What's the threshold for having subjective conscious experience. I clearly have it :D and I presume my fellow humans have it too. I get the sense that anything with our same sensory apparatus and a reasonable brain size has it too (cats, dogs, elephants, dolphins) even if they lack internal vocalized thoughts. But at what point is it unlikely that life forms have subjective consciousness? Does it require a brain linked to sensory apparatus? Does the brain have to be of a certain threshold complexity? Or does it just require sensory apparatus. I doubt sensory apparatus and any type of brain would be enough, because wouldn't that mean that many robots have subjective conscious experience?

And is subjective conscious experience really reducible to the known material elements of our brains, or does it exist in another dimension/substrate. It's easy to scoff at that question, but I doubt the easy certainty of some materialists that are so sure that subjective conscious experience is completely reducible to the known material components of the brain that we observe in operation when someone's conscious.

[coberst]

Perhaps is the operative term there, many creatures can not make the distinction, they eat that which is smaller and run from that which is begger. That does not involve a schema, in the way you are stating.

"There are trillions of synaptic connections "

That is not true of a mouse or other 'less sophisticated creature', categorization as you are discussing it is very high level cognition, that is not something that 'less sophiticated creatures' have the capacity for.

Actualy concepts are very high level cognition, most creature do not categorise in the way you use the word.

That is a nice assumption, but it need not be true to navigate through space, simpler algorithims can be used.


Thats all very nice, but it doesn't apply to where reason comes from, it applies to what we call reason, but involves high level cognition again.

You do not automaticaly percieve the spacial relations in a Venn diagram, they are learned through exposure and culture.

So your current argument starts with the most complex form of cognition and imposes it on 'less sophisticated creatures'.

You do not need reason for many of the things you are describing.


David you have been counting synaptic connections again, haven’t you?

Concepts are a necessary condition for perception.

A Venn diagram is a foundation for learning because we conceive in such spatial like containers. Such container systems are the stuff of our logical thinking. They are the source of Aristotelian logic.

We are looking for the cusp of reason and instinct but like looking for a thumb on a fish fin we must deal with very simple forms.

[coberst]

Nice asumption and where is the research that supports it?

Movement through space does not require reason, sorry.

Despite your assertion, 'reflex' can be sufficient.

Hey, I cut your meat into bite size portions but I am not your mother. You shall have to feed yourself.

[coberst]

Dealing with species that move, our OP brings up an interesting topic. What's the threshold for having subjective conscious experience. I clearly have it :D and I presume my fellow humans have it too. I get the sense that anything with our same sensory apparatus and a reasonable brain size has it too (cats, dogs, elephants, dolphins) even if they lack internal vocalized thoughts. But at what point is it unlikely that life forms have subjective consciousness? Does it require a brain linked to sensory apparatus? Does the brain have to be of a certain threshold complexity? Or does it just require sensory apparatus. I doubt sensory apparatus and any type of brain would be enough, because wouldn't that mean that many robots have subjective conscious experience?

And is subjective conscious experience really reducible to the known material elements of our brains, or does it exist in another dimension/substrate. It's easy to scoff at that question, but I doubt the easy certainty of some materialists that are so sure that subjective conscious experience is completely reducible to the known material components of the brain that we observe in operation when someone's conscious.

Good questions. After everyone agrees that I have zeroed in on the source of reason I shall have to explore them. I like to explore, as long as there are no snakes.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Concepts are a necessary condition for perception.
Google "Shakey the robot". Did he possess concepts, or dd he not perceive?

[Anacoluthon64]

Who said that a "a "neural cell" is functionally indistinguishable from a node in a neural network" I do not think I said that, if I did I take it back.What, then, is the meaning of this?
I speak of neural cells like I speak of neural networks.



Who said that " motile bacilli" reasons. I do not think I said that and if I did, I take it back.Your thesis strongly implies it.

More mustela kathiah stirrings.

'Luthon64

[coberst]

What, then, is the meaning of this?




Your thesis strongly implies it.

More mustela kathiah stirrings.

'Luthon64


I deny ever having been in Philadelphia

[drkitten]

The computer lacks a necessary component, it has no neural cells, which are a necessary component of the budding ability to reason.

Except that they're known not to be. As you pointed out, the whole reason that we know this much about neurobiology is from our computer simulation of neural cells. (A field with which Lakoff is definitely familiar, but you apparently aren't.)

Might I suggest that reading some technical material from more recent than 1959 would help?

[drkitten]

Neither non-scientific nor dated enough to explain his ideas or his approach to this topic, though.

Well, that's just because he's arrogant, undereducated, and as thick as two short planks.

[Anacoluthon64]

I deny ever having been in PhiladelphiaYes, such obviously curtailed mobility has a price: commensurately restricted reasoning.

'Luthon64

[coberst]

Sorry but life is too short to engage in such personal insults.

[Dark Jaguar]

Take a table. Remove one molecule at a time. When is the table no longer a table?

Most philosophers just go "oooo" and start spouting off a lot of nonsense.

As for me, I actually looked up in the dictionary what a table is. I'm gonna say when the table collapses, then it isn't a table any more. That's the problem I have with all of this stuff.

[Dancing David]

David you have been counting synaptic connections again, haven’t you?

Concepts are a necessary condition for perception.

this is just rubbish Coberst, you can lack a frontal cortex and still percieve, i suggest you read some more basic anatomy of the bvrain and study perception. lakhoff isd putting the cart before the horse.

Concepts are totaly un-needed for perception.

They are essential to cognition. But you can percieve without concepts, I suggest you read some neuro physiology, concepts are un-needed for color perception, but they are useful in description.


A Venn diagram is a foundation for learning because we conceive in such spatial like containers.

more rubbish, concepts are totaly un-needed in perception, you can percieve even if you have no frontal cortex, you can percieve without thought. Your statement about venn diagrams is philosphical nonsense, it has no bearing in scienctific psychiology. We concieve in the realm of thought, you will see optical illusions in a pre thought fashion. So you are abusing the term concept.

Such container systems are the stuff of our logical thinking. They are the source of Aristotelian logic.

Oh, i see, that doesn't go far with me, Aristotle did more to ruin science than most. Yuck to Aristotle. Up with Heraclites.


We are looking for the cusp of reason and instinct but like looking for a thumb on a fish fin we must deal with very simple forms.

Which you are not even cogent of, concepts are thoughts and un-needed to perception, your sources must be theoretical.

Reason is the ability to make value judgements concerning a wide variety of thoughts and the circumstances that support the thoughts. It is not related to negotiating spatial relations.
Whatever source you are reading is not about science, it is about philosphy. Do you think that an insect or baby deer needs a concept of 'stand' to place it's weight on it's legs?
Sorry.

[Dancing David]

Hey, I cut your meat into bite size portions but I am not your mother. You shall have to feed yourself.

Can't support your philosophy and so you resort to insult, sounds sophmoric to me. Your assertion was just that, concepts are not needed to negotiate space, reflex can do for many creatures. I can't help it that you read un-supported philosophy and find it to be science.

So, when you are ready to discuss stuff, I will be here, but your a weenie for the comment about meat. You are a very juvinile old person.

But since you threw down the gauntlet lets examine your statement shall we

Reasoning requires the ability to conceptualize and the ability to infer. It appears to me that any creature that moves in space must have the neural structure necessary to conceptualize and infer in order to survive, i.e. such creatures



Reasoning requires the ability to conceptualize and the ability to infer

A definition is a very good place to start.


It appears to me that any creature that moves in space must have the neural structure necessary to conceptualize and infer in order to survive


see there you are just asserting that a creature must be able to conceptualize to move!

So either you are abusing the term 'concept' which would be a cognitive model of some sort , with gawd knows what.

I do not have to be able to conceptualise a room to navigate it!


You don't have to infer that a wall exists to avoid it.

Much simpler structures will do, that is what you get for reading philosphy.

A crappy attitude and a head full of crap.

Lets see, bugs can negotiate space, mice can negotiate space, and only a philospoher would say they conceptualise. Simple approach avoidance alogorithims will do, say negotiating the clear space next to a wall, the object(the visual line of the wall) merely stays fixed in the relative visual field as the creature moves forward, or even better the creature merely stays in contact with the wall on a single side.

No need to conceptualise a wall there.

Foolish wonk!

And donk, you are so closed minded I shant bother with you in this thread again.

[Dancing David]

Sorry but life is too short to engage in such personal insults.


Yeah, I doubt it, at least i can chew my meat with my real teeth and I question what fools tell me.


Hey, I cut your meat into bite size portions but I am not your mother. You shall have to feed yourself.

Ad hom much hypocrite?

[coberst]

I would say that the basic facts that we have to start the search for the cusp of instinctive and reasoned behavior might be:

1) Somewhere in the chain of life from its mysterious beginning to the present there exists a point when behavior is influenced by something we call reason rather than something we call instinct.

2) Using computer lingo we can classify instinct as behavior caused by hardwired algorithms and reasoned behavior to be caused by real time evaluations giving real time instructions controlling behavior.

3) Reason is a means to control behavior based upon real time assessment of real time circumstances.

4) Reason requires that data from the senses be ordered into some fashion that will facilitate real time inferences, this is called conceptualization; followed by inferences made from these concepts.

5) We have, from computer modeling technology, empirical evidence that the neural system that control perception and mobility have the capacity to conceptualize and to infer. In other words, the essential elements of sensorimotor control are also the essential elements of reasoning. The algorithms developed by computer software are similar to the real time commands issued by the neural system that is reasoning.

6) If biology has created the structure that has the elements for reasoning it is logical to conclude that such a system would not be duplicated for reason but that this very same system would be modified in whatever manner is necessary for it to function also as an instrument that can reason.

[coberst]

That would be a "no," then.

None of those are "science" books. They're philosophy books -- and some are rather dated at that.

Our text books and our schooling are designed to facilitate our acquisition of knowledge about a science--a domain of knowledge.

Understanding is a far step beyond knowing. After schooling is over one can seek understanding and the books I mention are designed to facilitate understanding.

[coberst]

Can't support your philosophy and so you resort to insult, sounds sophmoric to me. Your assertion was just that, concepts are not needed to negotiate space, reflex can do for many creatures. I can't help it that you read un-supported philosophy and find it to be science.

So, when you are ready to discuss stuff, I will be here, but your a weenie for the comment about meat. You are a very juvinile old person.

But since you threw down the gauntlet lets examine your statement shall we



Reasoning requires the ability to conceptualize and the ability to infer

A definition is a very good place to start.


It appears to me that any creature that moves in space must have the neural structure necessary to conceptualize and infer in order to survive


see there you are just asserting that a creature must be able to conceptualize to move!

So either you are abusing the term 'concept' which would be a cognitive model of some sort , with gawd knows what.

I do not have to be able to conceptualise a room to navigate it!


You don't have to infer that a wall exists to avoid it.

Much simpler structures will do, that is what you get for reading philosphy.

A crappy attitude and a head full of crap.

Lets see, bugs can negotiate space, mice can negotiate space, and only a philospoher would say they conceptualise. Simple approach avoidance alogorithims will do, say negotiating the clear space next to a wall, the object(the visual line of the wall) merely stays fixed in the relative visual field as the creature moves forward, or even better the creature merely stays in contact with the wall on a single side.

No need to conceptualise a wall there.

Foolish wonk!

And donk, you are so closed minded I shant bother with you in this thread again.


Sophomoric behavior is age specific behavior; just as ‘being cool’ by being negative is age specific.

I do not recall ever encountering these forms of behavior in adults (those above 25). That is why, I guess, that we see so much negativity and sophomoric behavior on Internet forums.

I suspect anonymity tends to fortify the confidence of the young to let such feelings take command; little chance of mother finding out. All of us pass through this age and thus most of us understand this behavior and will easily excuse it.

[Wudang]

Our text books and our schooling are designed to facilitate our acquisition of knowledge about a science--a domain of knowledge.

Understanding is a far step beyond knowing. After schooling is over one can seek understanding and the books I mention are designed to facilitate understanding.

In that case, shouldn't you read the science books first?