In praise of connectionism

[stevie]

The philosophical question this topic asks is: does connectionism, as I have described it, have a place in philosophical discussion? Is that place deserved? Or is it just playing mind-games when a more serious demeanour might be more appropriate? Over to you.

As I see it reductionism and your connectionism are just perspectives and neither is right or wrong. In a sense every perspective taken is a "mind-game". But these "mind-games" may serve purposes and while a particular "mind-game" may support a particular purpose it may be inappropriate for another purpose.

You can see a battleship as a complete package, look at its parts, or view it as an element of a fleet or of an entire navy. However, perspective just sort of melts down when you try to see it at the smallest or largest perspective. The behavior of subatomic elements within the ship doesn't help me to see what the ship is, if it is a threat or of use to me, etc. And, looking at the ship from the perspective of life, the universe and everything seems to strip it of any possible use or meaning.
It seems like the human perspective can only fall between the extremes, and we are trying to work beyond our pay grade if we move to the extremes.

That's another perspective, your momentary perspective in the present context.

It is an interesting mind game to play, but can anyone say how it could be more than that? Can we discover anything real by playing this game?

Every perspective may serve a purpose. So why "more than that"? If it serves the purpose then that's enough. If it does not serve the purpose then either the perspective or the assumed purpose or both may be called "inappropriate". That's how I see it ... or ... that's my perspective.

[chewybrian]

Every perspective may serve a purpose. So why "more than that"? If it serves the purpose then that's enough. If it does not serve the purpose then either the perspective or the assumed purpose or both may be called "inappropriate". That's how I see it ... or ... that's my perspective.

That seems quite right. We can always miss the forest for the trees, or vice versa, so we should periodically tinker with our perspective and see if we get better results from a different viewpoint. But, I didn't think that was the topic at hand.

It's very common for people on the forums to say that there is only one consciousness, one substance or one moment in time. That's the idea that seems useless by definition to me. Say you look at time. If there is only one present instant, in which no time passes whatsoever, then all the rules of gravity and such are suspended. Nothing can hurts us or help us and no progress toward any goal can be made. Meaning is lost within that instant. The same happens when we look at time as eternal. At that perspective, nothing could possibly matter, either.

So, reducing or connecting could prove useful, and we just have to muddle around and see if the results please us or not. But, we can't run it all the way to the end, as people seem apt to do here, and expect results that have value.

[mystery]

As a designer of software, I often used generalisation to create the design solution I needed. It offered perspectives without which my job would have been much harder, maybe even impossible. For design is a creative endeavour. It is formal and rigorous too, but it is creative. It employs such tools as convergent and divergent thinking, among others.

I can see the solution before I understand it. I accept that as odd as it is. Having worked first military command networks, first multiprotocol stacks, the first time a common person paid for and connected to the internet, I was there. Some sort of rhythm and song is in the solutions and its beauty is awesome but only after the mental war of searching in the void. The strength and will to search when no path exists...


All that aside, the movie Avatar does a good job of telling the story of connections.

[Atla]

So why do we commit the atrocity of reductionism? Because we have no choice. The universe is just too big for our minds to swallow in one bite. We get mental indigestion if we try, and we achieve little or nothing.

There is also a very mundane reason behind it, if you accept the MBTI as kinda valid: sensors make up about 75% of the population, and they simply don't see things as naturally connected (as an extreme generalization, that's how their minds work by default).

[Pattern-chaser]

I'm not sure I'm ever going to comprehend where you're coming from. You contradict my responses, yet the way you describe your perceptions seem to align precisely with what I'm saying. Basically, you're saying what I am just in different ways. This behavior being translated in a different way in your head than it is mine. This is giving me a headache. I'm not done with this thread.

I can only echo your sentiments. When I read your posts, my first impression is not that they are wrong, but that I can't understand what you're saying. When I respond, it is usually with an attempt at clarification, to see if I am homing in on the right idea...?

[Pattern-chaser]

So why do we commit the atrocity of reductionism? Because we have no choice. The universe is just too big for our minds to swallow in one bite. We get mental indigestion if we try, and we achieve little or nothing.

There is also a very mundane reason behind it, if you accept the MBTI as kinda valid: sensors make up about 75% of the population, and they simply don't see things as naturally connected (as an extreme generalization, that's how their minds work by default).

Thank you, that is pabulum of the highest nutritional value. Hang on while I digest it....

[Pattern-chaser]

Some sort of rhythm and song is in the solutions and its beauty is awesome but only after the mental war of searching in the void. The strength and will to search when no path exists...

That is what it is to be a designer.

[stevie]

It's very common for people on the forums to say that there is only one consciousness, one substance or one moment in time. That's the idea that seems useless by definition to me. Say you look at time. If there is only one present instant, in which no time passes whatsoever, then all the rules of gravity and such are suspended. Nothing can hurts us or help us and no progress toward any goal can be made. Meaning is lost within that instant. The same happens when we look at time as eternal. At that perspective, nothing could possibly matter, either.

So, reducing or connecting could prove useful, and we just have to muddle around and see if the results please us or not. But, we can't run it all the way to the end, as people seem apt to do here, and expect results that have value.

"results that have value" is an instance of what I've called "purpose" and "reducing or connecting" are "mind-games" that may or may not serve the purpose of providing "results that have value".
As I see it "value" here is a private phenomenon and beyond public debate and whether the purpose or "results that have value" are attained also depends on the attitude one has towards one's own "mind-games".
E.g. psychologically there may be the experience of separateness (which may cause stress) based on the mode of experience of self. In that case playing the "mind-game" of "connectionism" (as understood by the OP) may serve the purpose of overcoming this experience of separateness and relaxation, a result that in this context has value for oneself.

[Pattern-chaser]

It's very common for people on the forums to say that there is only one consciousness, one substance or one moment in time. That's the idea that seems useless by definition to me. Say you look at time. If there is only one present instant, in which no time passes whatsoever, then all the rules of gravity and such are suspended. Nothing can hurts us or help us and no progress toward any goal can be made. Meaning is lost within that instant. The same happens when we look at time as eternal. At that perspective, nothing could possibly matter, either.

So, reducing or connecting could prove useful, and we just have to muddle around and see if the results please us or not. But, we can't run it all the way to the end, as people seem apt to do here, and expect results that have value.

"results that have value" is an instance of what I've called "purpose" and "reducing or connecting" are "mind-games" that may or may not serve the purpose of providing "results that have value".
As I see it "value" here is a private phenomenon and beyond public debate and whether the purpose or "results that have value" are attained also depends on the attitude one has towards one's own "mind-games".
E.g. psychologically there may be the experience of separateness (which may cause stress) based on the mode of experience of self. In that case playing the "mind-game" of "connectionism" (as understood by the OP) may serve the purpose of overcoming this experience of separateness and relaxation, a result that in this context has value for oneself.

I can see connectionism as a 'mind-game' in the sense that it exists within human minds, not in the universe itself. Fair enough. But it is also the case that connectionism simply observes that the connections between things are functional, as well as the things themselves. Connectionism is only necessary in the presence of reductionism, which wrongly assumes that only the things are functional. Is that a mind-game? Since even this argument has relevance only within our minds, perhaps it is?

[chewybrian]

It's very common for people on the forums to say that there is only one consciousness, one substance or one moment in time. That's the idea that seems useless by definition to me. Say you look at time. If there is only one present instant, in which no time passes whatsoever, then all the rules of gravity and such are suspended. Nothing can hurts us or help us and no progress toward any goal can be made. Meaning is lost within that instant. The same happens when we look at time as eternal. At that perspective, nothing could possibly matter, either.

So, reducing or connecting could prove useful, and we just have to muddle around and see if the results please us or not. But, we can't run it all the way to the end, as people seem apt to do here, and expect results that have value.

"results that have value" is an instance of what I've called "purpose" and "reducing or connecting" are "mind-games" that may or may not serve the purpose of providing "results that have value".
As I see it "value" here is a private phenomenon and beyond public debate and whether the purpose or "results that have value" are attained also depends on the attitude one has towards one's own "mind-games".
E.g. psychologically there may be the experience of separateness (which may cause stress) based on the mode of experience of self. In that case playing the "mind-game" of "connectionism" (as understood by the OP) may serve the purpose of overcoming this experience of separateness and relaxation, a result that in this context has value for oneself.

I can see connectionism as a 'mind-game' in the sense that it exists within human minds, not in the universe itself. Fair enough. But it is also the case that connectionism simply observes that the connections between things are functional, as well as the things themselves. Connectionism is only necessary in the presence of reductionism, which wrongly assumes that only the things are functional. Is that a mind-game? Since even this argument has relevance only within our minds, perhaps it is?

Well, I can see real value in moving up or down the scale. Say we are handicapping the horses. You might look at something up high, rather global, like a speed rating. The horses with the highest speed ratings definitely wins more often, so you are on to something. I might look lower down the scale. Say I handicap the race on pace. Horses that project to have a big pace advantage do tend to win more often, so I am also on to something. But, of course, these factors should be used in relation to each other and and light of whatever we know about the race at hand. So, one or the other will dominate and prove a better predictor from race to race, and both together will do a better job on the whole.

However, if you tell me that the horses, the jockeys, the dirt and the starting gate are all one thing, that they all share one consciousness, this has no value toward the goal of predicting the outcome of the race. I'm not trying to build a straw man, but only to point out that there is a limit to the times or ways we can do this connecting and expect a benefit. If you want to argue that you are happier to "know" that you are a part of that larger consciousness, then that is not something that transfers well or holds value for most of us. You have to believe that on faith if you choose to believe it. It may have some placebo effect, but I can't see that it has any tangible or intrinsic value.

[stevie]

It's very common for people on the forums to say that there is only one consciousness, one substance or one moment in time. That's the idea that seems useless by definition to me. Say you look at time. If there is only one present instant, in which no time passes whatsoever, then all the rules of gravity and such are suspended. Nothing can hurts us or help us and no progress toward any goal can be made. Meaning is lost within that instant. The same happens when we look at time as eternal. At that perspective, nothing could possibly matter, either.

So, reducing or connecting could prove useful, and we just have to muddle around and see if the results please us or not. But, we can't run it all the way to the end, as people seem apt to do here, and expect results that have value.

"results that have value" is an instance of what I've called "purpose" and "reducing or connecting" are "mind-games" that may or may not serve the purpose of providing "results that have value".
As I see it "value" here is a private phenomenon and beyond public debate and whether the purpose or "results that have value" are attained also depends on the attitude one has towards one's own "mind-games".
E.g. psychologically there may be the experience of separateness (which may cause stress) based on the mode of experience of self. In that case playing the "mind-game" of "connectionism" (as understood by the OP) may serve the purpose of overcoming this experience of separateness and relaxation, a result that in this context has value for oneself.

I can see connectionism as a 'mind-game' in the sense that it exists within human minds, not in the universe itself. Fair enough. But it is also the case that connectionism simply observes that the connections between things are functional, as well as the things themselves. Connectionism is only necessary in the presence of reductionism, which wrongly assumes that only the things are functional. Is that a mind-game? Since even this argument has relevance only within our minds, perhaps it is?

The idea of "connectionism" is a mental fabrication. I can't see how "it exists within human minds" may be derived.

Wiki defines "reductionism":

Reductionism is any of several related philosophical ideas regarding the associations between phenomena, which can be described in terms of other simpler or more fundamental phenomena.[1] It is also described as an intellectual and philosophical position that interprets a complex system as the sum of its parts.

It seems we are not taking the same approach: My approach is: what may be the goal (purpose, result) of thinking in terms of this or that guiding idea. Guiding ideas may be your "connectionism" or "reductionism" or countless other ideas.

[Pattern-chaser]

However, if you tell me that the horses, the jockeys, the dirt and the starting gate are all one thing, that they all share one consciousness, this has no value toward the goal of predicting the outcome of the race. I'm not trying to build a straw man, but only to point out that there is a limit to the times or ways we can do this connecting and expect a benefit. If you want to argue that you are happier to "know" that you are a part of that larger consciousness, then that is not something that transfers well or holds value for most of us. You have to believe that on faith if you choose to believe it. It may have some placebo effect, but I can't see that it has any tangible or intrinsic value.

While it is true that connectionist thinking informs my personal religious beliefs, it's one of many influences. And I agree with you that this is not the most useful area to which connectionism could be applied. Connectionism is more literal than that, or I intended it to be so. It is a response to, and a refutation of, the reductionist thinking we use in a divide-and-conquer way to understand stuff. It is a reminder that a network cannot be understood only from its nodes; nodes and connections are equally fundamental and necessary to the nature and being of the network itself: the whole.

Having said that, I emphasise again that reductionism is unavoidable in a practical context, even though it is wrong (incorrect, not morally wrong). So I think our response to this should be to bear in mind this shortcoming in our thinking practices; to remain aware of it. I can think of no response more useful than this, unfortunately.

[Pattern-chaser]

Wiki defines "reductionism":

Indeed it does, which is why I said this:

Yes, I have seen descriptions of reductionism that include much more than I have addressed. Being aware of this, I wrote "So reductionism, as I describe it above, is wrong".

I refer specifically to the divide-and-conquer method of disassembling stuff as we try to understand it, hoping that the connections we discard as we do so are insignificant.

It seems we are not taking the same approach: My approach is: what may be the goal (purpose, result) of thinking in terms of this or that guiding idea. Guiding ideas may be your "connectionism" or "reductionism" or countless other ideas.

Yes. I think the goal of our thinking is understanding. Reductionism, as I have described it, compromises our investigations, and our analyses thereof. Connectionism is not a guiding idea, or a different perspective, it is a correction to something that is wrong. Frustratingly, even though it is quite wrong, reductionism, as I have described it, cannot be avoided, in practice.

[Pattern-chaser]

P.S.

The idea of "connectionism" is a mental fabrication. I can't see how "it exists within human minds" may be derived.

Yes, it is (a mental fabrication). That "it exists within human minds" is derived directly from the observation that ""connectionism" is a mental fabrication".

[stevie]

P.S.

The idea of "connectionism" is a mental fabrication. I can't see how "it exists within human minds" may be derived.

Yes, it is (a mental fabrication). That "it exists within human minds" is derived directly from the observation that ""connectionism" is a mental fabrication".

If your understanding of "exists" means "momentarily appearing" then maybe. For me "exists" has a connotation of persistence and mental fabrications don't appear to persist although the fabrication may appear repeatedly.