sweep

i can see your point, what's the word solipsism, yes. Yet we do know the world is real as (what we touch) is the only knowledge we have.

you did say that you would be surprised if your computer turned out to be a hallucination but then how would you know it is a hallucination? (I'm only taking your word for it) Also, why would you be surprised if you already hold this belief? Not that it matters much, and i don't blame you if you kick over your monitor, then go out for a big drink or a pipe or some fresh air.

you must not make such a demand that others share the same 'belief' as yourself. Have a thousand people, even a billion observe, for instance a football match. Well, i think it is daft, but you don't think so, and i didn't make you up, and i assure you that i am here and i am real.

yes, i am glad you pointed out that expectation and prediction aren't too different. well spotted, owleye.

basically, novelty. If i were subjected daily to loads of flying cats, screeching around the room i am in, i wouldn't be surprised. if one popped out right now, i would leap a mile. the brain must have a mechanism - possibly a feedback mechanism that tells 'us' a pattern has not been re>cognised. i suppose the mechanism involves a trigger which accounts for any delay in the recognition process.

For instance, if a small purple anthropoid with bulging yellow eyes and chittering long teeth jumped from a bush the 'startle response' would kick in. some of the information present "sharp teeth" could be processed to further signal danger, which would be relayed to the hypothalamic- pituitary axis allowing secretion of corticio-steroids etcetera...

Another example: If i heard a distinctive cry i might be startled, but it's only partially distinctive, and the associative mechanisms allow me to register the input. Then i see the thing that made the noise, and i see it is small and covered in brown fur. I am not startled too much as brown fur is quickly recognised although i don't recognise the creature, so i am a little wary.

so recognition speed to me seems to be a feasible way of evaluating a potential threat. One day, i'm going to see a cute little mite, bend down to pet it, and get covered in a highly toxic nitrous compound. Unless anyone was around to witness the incident others would be surprised too.

Phew, i have never had the pleasure of being able to communicate with people who think much so i am surprised, pleasantly so. Thanks for helping me to think so much... i hope you don't have too many queries in your reply.

cheers

owleye

sweet as a nut....

"basically, novelty."

This level of analysis is not what I'd been seeking. If novelty represents something unexpected I can't say as you've told me much about how something unexpected can be observed. I'm looking for your philosophical analysis of the concept of surprise. I suspect I should take this (and what follows it) as an indication that there is no need for a philosophical analysis, since conditioned responses are quite adequate to explain our epistemological framework. However, I'm reminded of a comment from some source too long ago to remember who said that the difference between mice and humans is that when the left slot fails to provide the pellets it has consistently provided following a pecking regimen, the mice will without much fanfare try the right slot whereas humans will keep trying the left slot until they wear themselves out -- beating their head against a brick wall, so to speak.

"the brain must have a mechanism - possibly a feedback mechanism that tells 'us' a pattern has not been re>cognised."

Do you think it is a matter of trial and error? One way of characterizing what you seem to be saying is that our brain is an information processor which samples the world in accordance with what the brain expects. Sampling seeks relevant cues from the environment which confirm or reject its expectations (with due consideration for the arrival of equivocal information). Presumably there are degrees if not layers of confirmation and rejection that at the lesser deviation merely cause a slight adjustment in the conceptual framework. Others of greater deviation may put us into a state of denial (or as I'd prefer to say into a state in which judgments are suspended.) If a deliberation resulted the purpose of which was to resolve the inconsistencies (and I believe we are psychologically compelled to try to do this) one of two outcomes could occur, the first of which would take the observation to be an hallucination and the second that the framework needed to be changed to account for this new data. If this is the sort of thing you had in mind, what is true is the outcome of the state of deliberation over the relevant facts (cues) that we have encountered. That is, we (our nature) demand(s) a rational enquiry into the cause of our unease (unlike the case for the mouse).

That I'm able to extrapolate all this from your psychologizing says more about how I would proceed in my analysis rather than in what I've seen in yours.

owleye

sweep

did i surprise you?


or the third outcome would be to scream like a monkey, take offence... and call someone a longwinded, pompous git.

Since i was in a state of denial i will suspend my judgement, or risk another seemingly longwinded account of my psychologising, which, i fear, may not arrive.

to go about observing what is unexpected depends on the phenomenon in question.

if i am observing a pink chittering creature with bulbous eyes and long teeth, i will do so from a bush with a large gun and possibly a recording device.

if i am observing a blood sample then i will be surprise to note an unregistered stringy thing (bacterium). my initial response will be a startle response followed by a 'rational enquiry' as you put it.

thanks for the input. sorry to be such a thicko

as my brother just said a moment ago:
(referring to the smiley faces)

"you've seen them before lee"

"no, i haven't or i wouldn't have fucking asked would i?"

[ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: sweet as a nut ]</p>

snatchbalance

Philechat,

Are you limiting your definition of imagination to mental images only?

it seems to me that i have 2 modes of thought, an internal dialog, and series of mental images. Both involve imagination. Both get all mixed up.

Are imagination and "thinking", in and of itself, synonomouse?

sb

sweep

clear, concise... just how i like it. good on you, i er me!?, snatchbalance

at this point in time my travels with owleye seem to be a case of what i call: "the three little pigs syndrome" - the only trouble is i was unable to blow down his house. instead i were banging on the brick wall and i got a head ache. Feeling fine, now.

Still, i don't suppose this would be an uncommon remark with many people around here.

[ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: sweet as a nut ]</p>

sweep

Differentiation enables us to be surprised. Time is the essence, of many illusions:

The Ox and the rat. (quick change)

Many years ago Buddha called twelve animals before him, and told them that he would name a year of the Chinese zodiac after each. The animals were very pleased. But then the question of order arose, and trouble began.

“I should be first,” said the rat, “because of my intelligence.”

“No, I should be first,” said the ox. “Because of my size.”

The two animals argued for some time about which was more important, intelligence or size. After a while, the rat fell silent. “All right,” he said at last, “I admit that size is more important.” “Good,” said the ox. “It’s settled.”
“Not so fast,” said the rat. “My size is more impressive than yours.” “What?” snorted the indignant ox. “How can you, a mere rodent, impress anyone with your size?” “Let us go before the people,” replied the rat, “and let the opinion of the majority decide.” “Ridiculous!” the ox exclaimed. “Why should we waste time on your nonsense? Anyone can see that-”

“Now, now,” said Buddha. “Let’s not argue about it any longer. Of course the rat is smaller than you are. But why not let the majority of the people decide? Whoever more impresses them with his size shall be declared the winner.” The ox, certain of victory, agreed.

“Lord Buddha,” said the rat. “With the consent of the ox, I wish to have one favour granted before we present ourselves. If I am truly as small as the ox insists I am, I should like to lessen my inevitable embarrassment. Therefore, I ask that you temporarily double my size.”

Buddha asked the ox if he had any objections. “Of course not,” the ox answered. “After all, how much difference could it make? I’d still be one hundred times bigger than he is!”

The ox and the rat, the rat now twice his ordinary size, went out and walked among the crowds. Everywhere they went, people exclaimed in amazement: “Look at the size of that rat!” they shouted. “Look at that enormous rat!” No one noticed the ox. Everyone had seen an ox before. There was nothing unusual about him.

And that is how the rat impressed the people with his size, and became the first animal in the Chinese zodiac.

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: sweet as a nut ]</p>

owleye

sweet as a nut...

Let me ask you this. Can a dog be surprised? Can a bird be surprised? Both are creatures that can differentiate objects, possibly better than we can. There seems to be a relationship between mistakes and surprises. Can a dog or a bird make a mistake?

owleye

sweep

i think so owleye. birds can be startled by straw men but they quickly become accustomed to them and before long they're perched on its arm.

i hope this answers your question

owleye

sweet as a nut...

I would disagree that birds and dogs can be surprised (or make mistakes), since this requires judgments to be made, something that requires sophisticated conceptual processing, something that neither birds nor dogs are capable of. That is, humans have the ability to lift concepts out of the context they had learned them and apply them in new circumstances in such a way that they are in a position to know whether they are correctly applied. I would certainly agree that a bird and a dog can be startled, and that they have a sufficient cognitive capability to be able to rehearse future activities outside of the context in which they are actually applied, allowing them to engage in a certain "fun" activity, and that this permits these animals to have different cognitive states suitable for different contexts, further allowing that if the context changed they could be startled (as we would be), but this is quite different from the intentional attitude that humans have toward things which, though it might be described as trial and error in a behaviorist sense, I think covers more than that -- namely that we can know we have made a mistake.

owleye

sweep

owleye

i am not certain about this- do you think that the actions of animals are not based on rules? i could offer plenty examples of rules based behaviour from my McFarland book.
I don't dispute the notion of an ability to take 'knowledge' out of context and re-apply it. say no more- agreed!

Now, that aside, i am starting to see something that i may have missed when you initially asked me what allows us to be surprised. if the following is what you were in fact getting at, then i apologise for the misunderstanding.

i awoke around 23:00 hours and remembered a situation in which some boys were spitting at ducks on the canal. i was in a foul mood and wondered whether i really could will myself to push at least one of those boys in the canal. At that point it struck me that, if i had done so, i would have tested myself, done something out of the ordinary, and surprised myself when i awoke. At points i thought i may go mad if i were to 'shake-up' my life constantly.

thanks for the reply, owleye.