Frances Bolton writes Sat Nov.21/98: Doyle-- I've been reading tons of this neuroscience stuff that you've been posting and I still don't really know what you're talking about. I have some concerns about this neuroscience project. Now, I seem to recall that you are trying to use neuroscience as a basis for organizing political groups. I think that's odd, but I'll return to that in a moment.
Doyle It is my failing that you don't understand me. I am trying to use neuroscience as a basis for new ways of understanding how to organize human institutions. Why is it odd? I follow the example of George Lakoff who used prototype theory (in which prototypes are descriptions of basic brain states) concerning metaphors to write about moral politics in the U.S.
Frances Doyle, this doesn't make sense to me--what is a "logical extraction of felt values?"
Doyle The jargon I used was my own invention. I am sorry I am so hard to understand. I could have substituted moralizing here. SnitgirrRl wants me to admit I was moralizing just as I have accused her of in the past. I have said to SnitgirrRl in the past I thought moralizing wasn't efficaceous, but I still use the tool sometimes when I am moved by my own strong feelings about something or other. I wrote SnitgirrRl that I thought moralizing was composed of logic plus strong feelings, and the content was not important. Moralizing relies upon logical construction of rules. That is why I said to her my take on her comments was rule bound. I could admit I was logically inconsistent. That would simplify things here, simply to admit that I am flawed and humbled by SnitgirrRl. But I have already said in the past to SnitgirrRl that I and everyone must have a value system, and so finding logical errors in my writings is not about my admitting to my using moral thinking with respect to what she believes is a problem with my thinking. What I reject is a separable moral system as the Christian culture attempts which is a model of how the mind works.
Frances I don't want to speak for SnitgrrRl, but I don't see why you need to use "intuition" to describe what she's doing--I read her argument and thought she was suggesting that your argument is logically inconsistent. That doesn't have to do with intuition.
Doyle I use the word intuition as a common place word to indicate how metaphorical understanding is not logically constructed. Let me say that as plainly as I can, human minds find things through seeing patterns in the world first and foremost. Logical connections are not a strength of the human mind. SnitgirrRl can quickly spot some pattern in my written expression because she can perceive prototypes quickly and efficiently. I could laboriously undertake to reform my thinking to get rid of all possible logical inconsistency, and end up having no ability to express anything for example.
I would add that you probably pick up on intuition as a word that the social system applies to women as a sexist put-down. I meant that the main form of thinking in human is prototype like, which is not a logical construction of information, and we commonly refer to as a intuitive performance of understanding. Using pattern recognition human beings can easily take a leap outside logical rules. But your point is also true that having grasped that I was inconsistent somewhere in all the postings I have done snitgirrRl points at my inconsistency and that is her point entirely. What I have been trying to do with SnitgirrRl is argue for prototypes and not logic are more important and fundamental to thought. A direction neglected in our culture. Just as are feelings, because there is a cultural bias against such things.
Frances Nothing that you've written below makes any sense to me. She isn't talking brains, she's talking arguments. I don't see that color has anything to do with argument. I don't know why you're talking about "imagination," either.
Doyle SnitgirrRl is talking about "precisely the same", or symmetrical transformations logically shown in my writing compared to Jim Heartfield. SnitgirrRl says I did the same thing concerning using Obsessive Compulsive behavior as she claims Jim Heartfield does with his remark that Pomos blind people with their fuzzy thinking about science. The key I picked up on is "precisely the same". I went straight to neural network processes that best demonstrates a symmetrical like constancy that is like SnitgirrRl's finding a logical symmetry in my remarks. SnitgirrRl uses logical rules to find "same"ness in me and Jim. I use neural networks that find patterns of symmetry or constancy. I am trying to show that logic doesn't have to be in mental processes, and to undermine her dependence on logically constructing moral claims. One can reach the same goal through other means. In that case then I am casting away the onus upon intuition for example. That is why I try to get her to base her claims upon how the brain works. As long as SnitgirrRl relies upon simple moral reasoning without recourse to showing how the brain works, then she wins. She is vastly superior in quality to me in such reasoning.
Frances I've been sort of irked by your post since I received it, and I finally realized why today.
Doyle I appreciate you characterizing how you feel a great deal, because I think it is important that feelings be a part of our culture. I looked up irk in the dictionary and it said bored, and tiresome, and irritated. I think you mean I irritated you, because I didn't admit to an inconsistency to SnitgirrRl. But you have no doubt been reading my postings quietly in the background and have grown tired with my ways. I appreciate all the attention you have given me, Frances. thank you.
Frances It's grossly reductionist in the same way that the work of EO Wilson, Dawkins et al is reductionist. I don't see how it is useful to reduce logic, argumentation, art, conversation and political organizing to the simple neural network.
Doyle I have two questions about Wilson. Do you mean my position is like Wilson's in the sense that genetics controls human society? Do you mean my reduction of things is so much in error it is gross? I suppose you could mean simply reduction itself if not acceptable, but I can't agree with that. If you believe I am so much in error as to be grossly wrong, I hope you point to the error and correct my path. I think neural networks apply to all aspects of human conscious activity. That is why they are exciting to me. regards, Doyle Saylor
ps SnitgirrRl I can't reply today. I will acknowledge you asap.