Psychological Theories & Lit. Crit.

[naama]

No: HPFGUIDX 7514

--- In HPforGrownups at egroups.com, "Aberforth's Goat" <Aberforths_Goat at Y...>=
 wrote:
> 
> _The Emperor's New Mind_ (Penrose) is an example of that sort of thinking=
. I
> only read parts of it, and it was a few years ago, but IIRC the book
> combines Gödel theorems, quantum dynamics and chaos theory to shore up ol=
d
> psychological bedrocks like freedom and subjectivity. Penrose wanted to
> prove that our pyschology is fundamentally non-algorithmic, could never
> (even in principle) be reduced to a computer program.
> 

That sounds very interesting and just what I was (dimly) thinking of. 
A point occurs to me, regarding AI - wouldn't it be possible to incorporte =
randomality into 
a computer program? 

> > Then we will be more busy looking at the beauty of the patterns our
> > minds create (akin to the beauty of the patterns nature creates), inste=
ad
> of obsessing about
> > underdetermining causes.
> 
> Do you? Really? I'm not sure. To believe that something (our pasts, our
> brains, our souls, our hang ups, God, the CIA, whatever) causes people to=
 be
> who they are, is reassuring. It implies that I can (or could, at least
> theoretically) make sense of things people say, do or write, rather than
> just gawp at them. And if I could understand why Jo (or Dostojevski) wrot=
e
> this or that, I might understand something new about myself. At which poi=
nt,
> I might even see how to repair a broken part or two, maybe even grow a bi=
t
> 

Yes, I really, really do. I find the thought of a completely determined wor=
ld very barren. 
For me it is reassuring that there is a core of mystery to the world (and t=
o people) that 
can never be cracked open. 
Besides, what does it matter whether you understand why Jo wrote what she d=
id? What has it 
got to do with the effect the work has on you? The fact that you don't know=
 what made the 
author write what s/he did does not mean that you don't understand what s/h=
e wrote. It 
should not (and I think, it does not) make a major difference to the way th=
e book affects 
you. 
Which (again) reminds me of a quote:
Why did the chicken cross the road?
Derrida: Any number of contending discourses may be discovered
within the act of the chicken crossing the road, and
each interpretation is equally valid as the authorial
intent can never be discerned, because structuralism
is DEAD, DAMMIT, DEAD!
(in http://www.jamesdawe.com/chickenjoke.html)


> (Of course, that leaves open the small question of freedom--but does maki=
ng
> freedom a by-product of a chaotic interaction between quantum-dynamic bra=
in
> squiggles really help?)

Strangely, for me it does. Maybe because I don't understand it at all (I'm =
not a physicist) 
and I just grasp the slogans.
> 
> Which all goes to prove that interpreting Hermione in terms of penis envy=
 is
> actually a serious and healthy pursuit ... (j/k!) (BTW, I'm very thankful=

> for people like Ebony, Pam and CMC who can actually use the psychoanalyti=
c
> tradition for anything besides off-color jokes. Their inputs have been
> fascinating!)

Agreed.


Naama