Re: cognitive != observable? (project three)

Patty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Neil W Rickert wrote:
>> Patty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>>>Perhaps I should emphasize more that the stratagy is to 
>>>create a platform on which we can *start* evolving.  Even a 
>>>baby does not know its references when it *starts* to babble.

>> Very much the point.

>> I got into this area at precisely that point -- how does a baby (or
>> any organism) make sense of the bloomin' buzzin' confusion of signals
>> and establish reference?

>> I believe I have solved the problem.  But it turns out that
>> practically nobody is in the least bit interested.  It seems that
>> almost everybody take reference for granted, and sees me as not
>> having solved any problem at all.

>Well I am very interested in it.  Could you sketch the 
>solution here, or is it already on the web?

In my version, what the brain is mainly doing is measuring and
coordinating measurement.  It boils down to "cognition is
measurement" rather than "cognition is computation."

The main work of learning is the construction of measuring conventions.

Hebbian learning then turns out to be fine tuning of the calibration
for the measuring processes.

A major part of language acquisition amounts to calibrating ones
measuring in a way that coordinates with the rest of the community.