steven pinker

• http://video.google.com/…?docid=3554279466299738997
  
  oncelikle saclarinin hastasiyim, bu bir. ses tonunun daha bir hastasiyim, bu da iki. ha bir de fikirleri var tabii, onlar da onemli, sanirim yani. bildigin iste, dil zeka bilinc kil yun, super yani.
  
  ulan yuzeysel olmanin taklidini bile yapamiyorum, oyle dolu, oyle kulturluyum. efenim, simdi bu zatin soyle ilginc bir dusuncesi var, linkteki videoyu sabredip izleyenler de gorecektir zaten. diyor ki:
  
  1) beyinde her durumu (state) birebir sekilde, norolojik temeline eslestirebiliriz (map). yani fiziksel bir izdusumu olmayan bir beyin aktivitesi eeeh eytere be, turkce mi lan bu, sikinti basti valla. hepten lastigi patlatip ingilizce yaziyorum kardesim, yoksa sabaha kadar burada olurum, gocunan okumasin
  
  1) every brain state can be mapped to its neurological foundation, such that we can't have any phenomena which is not grounded, or at least manifested, in the physical world.
  2) such reductionism can explain upper level abstractions associated with consciousness from a functional point of view
  3) however it does not explain the center of consciousness, which is the subjective self, the feeling of being me
  4) in fact, there is not even a sound evolutionary explanation for this feeling of being someone; you certainly dont need it to survive or even to devise strategy. so why did it evolve? does it follow naturally from other higher level functions of the brain, as it gets more complex or is it a coincidental by-product?
  5) some people (like the interviewer, robert wright) think that, since this yet inexplicable and evolutionary superflous part is also the part that gives the life its meaning, it is not merely a by-product and there could be a higher purpose to life. it's like a supernatural manifestation embedded in the physical world, waiting there only to be stumbled upon by a complex sense of the self. pinker, however, while conceding that there is no valid counter-argument to that, doesn't quite buy it and thinks that creation of the meaning may not imply an a priori purpose/design, especially if higher neurological complexity ultimately generates such subjectivity whether it's useful from an evolutionary standpoint or not.
  6) instead, pinker says that the strangeness of this sense of self lies in the fact that it's inexplicable, because you have to use nothing but itself to begin with in order to argue the existence of it. just like the fact that brain can not visually rotate a 4 dimensional object or comprehend the notion of infinity, it can also not grasp itself. in fact the limitation is more severe here if godel's incompleteness theorem is applied. you simply need to take a step back and look at your own mind from a bird's eye view, but since that mind is actually you, this wont be possible.
  7) therefore, even if you solve all the neurological relationships and even if you can artificially construct a self, you can't devise a language to talk about it, you can not grasp it. it will still be within the realm science, not supernatural, but outside human understanding... thus argues pinker. ^*
  
  evet, bir ara zamanimiz olursa turkceye ceviririz, ya da baskalari cevirsin. pinker bu yuzden de kendini mysterian olarak tanimliyor, yani adam hem materyalist hem de bilinc konusunda bilinemezci, daha dogrusu bilincin hic bir zaman bilinemeyecegi dusuncesine meyilli.
  
  vallahi oyle de olabilir tabii ama hele biz bi beynin emergent yapisini kavrayalim, norolojik kismini bitirelim, evrimsel surecte ne zaman nerede neden ciktigini ogrenelim, ondan sonra bakalim bilincin merkezinin aciklanip aciklanmamasina; simdiden romanin sonunu tahmin etmek pek kolay degil, katil ne asci ne usak.