|
Abstract:
(Invited Talk)
Jerome Bruner (Acts of Meaning/1990 p 2) emphasizes that we
should try to "recapture the original momentum of [what he
called] the first cognitive revolution". It's aim according to
Bruner was to bring back "mind" into the human sciences after a
long cold winter of objectivism. A renewed cognitive revolution
should be a more interpretive approach to cognition concerned
with "meaning-making". The aim of the original revolution (Bruner
p 2) was "to discover and to describe formally the meanings that
huan being created out of their accounters with the world, and
then to propose hypotheses about what meaning-making processes
were implicated".
But from very early on "emphasis began shifting from
»meaning« to »Information«, from
construction of meaning to the processing of meaning" (Bruner p
4). Thus very soon "computing became the model of the mind, and
in place of the concept of meaning there emerged the concept of
computability" (Bruner p 6). Bruners proposal for a reassesing of
the cognitive revolution is (Bruner p 11): to "return to the
question of how to construct a mental science around the concept
of meaning and the processes by which meanings are created and
negotiated within the community".
The aim of my own considerations is accordingly to come to
terms with Bruners suggestion and find a new understanding of
"computation/computationalism" that can to justice to both
Bruners qualms and produce a better handling of the problems we
are up to in the Cognitive Sciences and in some recent
publication on the topic, e. g. Lakoff/Johnson: Philosophy in the
Flesh and Philosophical Computer. Meaning, to put this concept
into the center of our attention, way back in Frege's concern as
"Sinn", can be studied as "means to come to terms with reality".
The problem is, how do they work/function? What is it that we
really can explain in invokig their existence (or assumed
"intentional stance"/Dennetts' "as if") and essentially which
processes (in their relation to an embodied computational
approach) can generate meanings (evoke mental states) in such a
way that they we can adjust ourselves properly [whatever that may
be] to (problematic) situations in the world, using attitudes to
explain and predict the behaviour of others ( according to the
assumtion of other's minds).
So I shall investigte with the help of some easy formal means
and graphics the very idea of computation and how it got
transformed and perhaps misapplied (according to some
misunderstanding of Turing) in a literal way to "understanding
the mind".
Some preconceptions (of this analysis) can be found in my
article on Turing and in some short piece on communication in the
internet [
http://www.iwp.uni-linz.ac.at/
... ].
What is essential for my analysis is the relalion between
model and reality and what some simulation [e g. in the context
of virtual reality programs] can tell us about a realm under
inverstigation, furthermore how the algorithms, that is envoked
by the model can be projected "onto" reality and which "action
guiding" operationalisations it does produce in our daily
practice, i. e. how do we study or eventually grasp those
processes which generate meaning and how can we then use this to
build up meaning (e. g. in education), i. e. convey of offer
meaning, such that the behaviour of "other minds" [of course
persons etc. -- I hope that joke is allowed for in the symposium]
becomes understandable and we can adjust ourselves to them or
their needs.
|
