Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Durnavich
One function of philosophical discussions, however, is to re-examine the obvious from time-to-time.
|
I entirely agree, but what we find when we examine the obvious is the obviousness of the importance of making models whenever engaging in intelligent thought.
Quote:
|
Just to speak clearly here, a person--not a model--makes predictions and unifies observations.
|
Actually, it is perfectly normal physics parlance to say that a model makes predictions. There is no imprecision there that isn't purely pedantic. Your objection is no different than objecting to the claim that an exception disproves a theorem, or that rain adds water to a puddle (only people can prove, only people can add, etc., etc.). A pointless distinction.
Quote:
|
Well, I was hoping for something a little more clear-cut than in the mind of a baby, but on the other hand, that you chose this example is informative as to what you consider models to be.
|
My point is that you can start anywhere you want in your own personal history of making models. It is probably the single most common activity of conscious intelligence, along with language (which itself has a close relationship with modeling, because language is nothing but syntactic relationships between labeled experiences, and the way we consciously understand and conceptualize our experience is pretty much uniquely via modeling it.) So in short, you ask, "what is a model", to which I respond, "what isn't?" Indeed, everything you say about behavior is not actually behavior at all, it is your model of behavior. (What is the act of putting, after all? Do I have to be using a putter to be doing it? What is a putter anyway? What is your model of a golf ball?
None of the behaviors you describe are actually behaviors.)
Quote:
|
But you are attempting an indirect argument for a model here when something a little more direct is called for. You observe a parent attend to the baby when it cries and the baby ceasing crying after it is taken care of. That's what is known to exist here.
|
No, that is not what I am doing at all, which is why I did not use those words. I went into the mind of the child, and asked, what is it thinking, when it actually starts to think, rather than simply reacting instinctively? Answer: it is thinking in terms of models. It is you who insist on considering your own model of what behavior is. Even in this very quote, you are modeling the interaction of a parent and a child. Maybe the parent strikes the child in anger, or ignores it. Maybe the parent runs, or walks. Maybe the parent gives it milk, or maybe changes the diaper. What did you mean when you said "observe the parent attend to the baby"? You obviously have some model in mind. If the parent ignores the baby, is that attending? You never actually observe anyone "attending" anything, you only observe movements of their body. "Attending" is just your own personal
model of what they are doing (likely a model shared by many if not all onlookers). Luckily, we do indeed think in terms of models, with great efficacy, for language itself would be virtually meaningless otherwise.
Quote:
|
That doesn't help me understand what a model is.
|
The reason you claim to not understand what a model is is sheer obstinence. Virtually everything you say is making models, even now. You just used the word "understand", for example. What does that mean, anyway? You obviously have some model in mind for what constitutes understanding, even if that model is behavioral in nature (as I'm sure it is). Speaking in terms of behavior in no way avoids the need to make models, it's just another kind of model-- that is all you are doing.
Quote:
|
All you have done is state the observed patterns of behavior and then said that a model causes it.
|
I stated no such thing. Why on Earth would I state that a model "causes" anything? Models are mental processes we use to understand and predict-- causes are something entirely different. Indeed, the whole concept of "cause" is
also a model. What do you think you mean by "causes it", what model do you have in mind there?
Quote:
|
We could more effectively just leave it at saying that the reason the baby cries is that its parents came to it when it cried. At least there would be a clear cause and a clear effect.
|
But one must of course recognize that even "cause and effect" is a model relationship. The
actual relationship is simply that one thing happens, and then the other-- you
model it as something else when you use that phrase.