[Fis] Answer to Mark

[Marcos Ortega Luis de]

Dear Pedro and FIS colleagues,

First and foremost we want to thank you for the opportunity to share our work and for the stimulating conversation that followed.

As for Pedro’s comments and questions, although we agree that bio-neuro-cognitive plausibility may increase the acceptability of our approach we want to note that our base is philosophical/humanistic (physical/mechanicistic in your words) and it is here were we want to differentiate. We do not preclude other stances but holistic plausibility may not be possible and it is not our objective (at the present moment).

To be honest we have to say that we have not considered talking. Language is quite a complex system of communication. Although its general characteristics are well defined, and this is my personal opinion, usually philosophical and psychological theories that also account for language have a certain tendency to become entangled. We also appreciate your note about the limits of creativity. 

Regards have a good vacation,


Luis de Marcos Ortega
Dpto. Ciencias de la Computación    Computer Science Department
Universidad de Alcalá               University of Alcalá
http://www.uah.es/pdi/luis_demarcos

________________________________________
De: Fis <fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es> en nombre de Pedro C. Marijuan <pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es>
Enviado: viernes, 31 de julio de 2015 14:38
Para: 'fis'
Asunto: Re: [Fis] Answer to Mark

Dear Fernando, Luis, and FIS colleagues,

In a few days the list will take vacations (it is our tradition that in
August we do not make discussions). At your convenience, around next
week better, you are invited to make some concluding comments if you
find them opportune. The discussion has had quite interesting points and
you may have obtained elements of reflection --as we all have had.

As an overall opinion, probably distorted and biologically biased, I
find the way of thinking of your essay too much relying on
mechano-physicalist elements. It is part of what I call the XIX and XX
Century "social thermodynamics" complex (social forces, social masses,
irreversible social processes, productive forces, etc.). Maybe because
of the space-mechanistic view, at the microlevel, the bases of the
theory of human act, and the accompanying classifications, have scarce
ecological and neurological sense. For instance, the neural areas
devoted to the hand are at least ten times larger than the areas devoted
to the whole arm (and the tongue has also a disproportionate large
representation) both in the sensory and motor cerebral "homunculi".
Sure, it is accordance with the behavioral complexity and degrees of
freedom of the corresponding actions. The hierarchic approach does not
fit well with the biological organization of behavior either. Besides,
what about the info value of the actions of other Anthropoidea in their
niches--the same as humans? Also, why in the vital acts the info
escalates to infinity?, while at the same time "the information of the
life world is constant." Creativity in itself is not unbounded, as
Kauffman put, the "adjacent possible" holds for the possible
technological, creative, and social changes. Regarding the "dignity" and
"zooming" of the vital acts, these terms and the way they are used are
again alien to elementary cognitive stances...

Finally, the most important "action" of the human being is talking. See
the "Social Brain Theory" of Baron-Cohen and Dunbar. Talking is second
only to sleeping in the daily hours devoted. The relative social,
intercultural, historic constancy of that ecological time devoted to
talking (and the number of bonding relationships associated) has
motivated the concept of "sociotype", within the triad
genotype-phenotype-sociotype. This enlarged sociotype was the crucial
evolutionary factor of humans. Whatever impinges in the communication
practices that subtend the sociotype (writing, books, computers) etc.
has a disproportionate impact in the actions, practices, products and
artifacts related to human sociality. The cortical space devoted to
sociotype dynamics and memory contents is the highest within our brain.
Actually, by decreasing our social capabilities, we may concentrate in
new cultural activities... Thus, the sociotype would delineate our basic
info constraint.

I would like to ad several other comments, but it is not the case. The
point of view adopted by this essay is quite curious and interesting for
both the micro and macro levels, although some more
bio-neuro-compatibility would benefit its acceptability, I think.

All the best & enjoy the vacations

---Pedro