Get documents about "in the Behavioral Sciences Distinguished University Professor for University of Maryland
Document Sample
The Way We Think
Gilles Fauconnier & Mark Turner
Gilles Fauconnier: Mark Turner:
Pronounced (IPA): ʒil fo.kɔ.nje Currently:
Currently: Institute Professor and Chair of Cognitive
Science at Case Western Reserve University
Professor at University of California, San
Diego in the department of Cognitive Science. Previously:
Associate Director of Center for Advanced
Study in the Behavioral Sciences
Distinguished University Professor for
University of Maryland.
MAJOR CLAIMS:
“Consciousness can glimpse only a few vestiges of what the mind is doing,” as “The imagination
is always at work in ways that consciousness does not apprehend,” and “Nearly all important
thinking takes place outside of consciousness and is not available on introspection.” (p. 33-34)
“The mental feats we think of as the most impressive are trivial compared to everyday capacities.”
(p. 33)
They state that imagination is mistakenly thought of as optional - that imaginative processes are
actually essential not only to statements like “If I had milk, I would make muffins” (p. 221), but
also “Paula is the boss of the daughter of Mike” (p. 277), and even the act of seeing a blue cup of
coffee as a single item (p. 8).
The imaginative process this book deals with is referred to as “blending,” and is the construction
of a “blended” “mental space” (p. 40).
WHAT’S A MENTAL SPACE?
Put simply: “Mental spaces are small conceptual packets constructed as we think and
talk, for purposes of local understanding and action” (p. 40).
There are different types of mental spaces:
Input spaces: components of these are compared.
Generic spaces: “maps onto each of the inputs and contains what the inputs have in
common” (p. 41).
Finally, the blended space or “blend.”
WHAT’S A BLEND?
A blended space is a mental space in which two (or more) input spaces are compared.
The point of making a blend is to bring concepts to human scale (p. 312), or to infuse
them with new, helpful meaning (p. 92).
“It makes us both efficient and creative” (p. 92).
THE BUDDHIST MONK EXAMPLE
“A Buddhist Monk begins at dawn one day walking up a mountain, reaches the top at
sunset, meditates at the top for several days until one dawn when he begins to walk
back to the foot of the mountain, which he reaches at sunset. Make no assumptions
about his starting or stopping or about his pace during the trips. Riddle: Is there a place
on the path that the monk occupies at the same hour of the day on the two separate
journeys?” (p. 39) 2.
To solve the problem, imagine the monk
walking simultaneously up on the first day and
down on the last day, meeting himself at some
point on the mountain path. 3.
Why is this so easy to imagine, when it’s
physically impossible for the monk to “meet 1.
himself,” and physically impossible for the two
days to “be the same?”
“The imaginative conception of the monk’s
meeting himself blends the journey to the
summit and the journey back down, and it has
the emergent structure of an ‘encounter’”
between two people, not present in either input
space (p. 40).
THE BUDDHIST MONK EXAMPLE
Input spaces: One for the journey on the first day; one for the journey on the last day.
Generic space: Each input space has a monk, moving along a path on the mountain.
Blended space: Each input space’s 2.
mountain slope is the same mountain slope
in the blended space.
The day of the ascent and day of the 3.
descent are “fused” into a single day, d’.
The monk(s) and his/their direction of 1.
motion, though, can’t be fused, and the
blend develops an emergent structure not
present in either input space: that of two
“separate people” meeting on the same day
on the same path, going in opposite
directions. (p. 41-42)
THE BUDDHIST MONK EXAMPLE
Input spaces: One for the journey on the first day; one for the journey on the last day.
Generic space: Each input space has a monk, moving along a path on the mountain.
3.
1.
3.
1.
THE BUDDHIST MONK EXAMPLE
Blended space:
Each input space’s mountain slope is the same
mountain slope in the blended space.
The day of the ascent and day of the descent
are “fused” into a single day, d’.
The monk(s) and his/their direction of motion,
though, can’t be fused, and the blend develops
an emergent structure not present in either
input space: that of two “separate people”
meeting on the same day on the same path,
going in opposite directions. (p. 41-42)
1. 3.
SELECTIVE PROJECTION
Selective projection describes what is put into the
blended space from the input spaces. (p. 71)
If one isn’t selective enough with what they
project, things become confusing in a similar way
to the way they do when one maps too much from
the source domain while making a metaphor.
If you’re told to “pretend you’re a waiter” in order
to ski well, that doesn’t mean you should take your
skis off and ask people if they’re ready to order. It
means you should look ahead and pay attention to
your sense of balance, etc. (p. 35)
Rene Magritte’s The Treachery of Images: “This is Not a Pipe.”
VITAL RELATIONS
When compressing relations in the blend to achieve human scale, there are some links
the input spaces tend to have.
These are called Vital Relations.
Compression:
Inner vs. Outer Space Relations:
VITAL RELATIONS
Identity:
Possibly the most basic vital relation (p. 95), and taken for granted: we see the monk on the
first day as the same monk on the last day; we see a baby as “the same” as the toddler as “the
same” as the teen as “the same” as the adult.
“We do not ask ourselves how we can see one thing as one thing because we assume that the
unity comes from the thing itself, not from our mental work, just as we assume that the meaning
of the picture is in the picture rather than in our interpretation of it,” but different aspects of a
cup of coffee are actually processed in different parts of the brain. (p. 8)
Uniqueness:
Also taken for granted; it’s automatic for elements in the blend. “Many vital relations compress
into uniqueness in the blend.” (p. 101)
VITAL RELATIONS
Analogy: often compressed into uniqueness and change (p. 99)
“Isn’t blending just a kind of analogy?”
No: “In standard analogical reasoning, a base or source domain is mapped onto a target so that
inferences easily available in the source are exported to the target… but in the skiing example…
the instructor is not suggesting that the skier move ‘just like’ a waiter.” (p. 35)
New Year’s and the Pope
Disanalogy:
Atlantic vs. Pacific.
Often compressed into “change.”
Change:
Connects elements or groups of elements to each other (p. 93).
Sapling Tree; Dinosaur Bird.
VITAL RELATIONS
Time:
New Year’s Day in 1988 and in 2007 are connected by time; Baby’s Ascent ritual
compresses time.
Space: frequently compressed.
Intentionality: compression may create it in the blend – Dinosaur Bird.
Cause-Effect: Fire Ashes; Cup Blueness (p. 78), Ache in phantom limb (p. 79)
VITAL RELATIONS
Part-Whole: “That’s Gilles Fauconnier!”
(-s face!)
Representation: Paint is paint, etc.
“This is not a pipe – just try to stuff it
with tobacco! If I were to have had
written on my picture ‘This is a Pipe’ I
would have been lying.” – possibly said
by Rene Magritte himself!
VITAL RELATIONS
Role: Of the pope – “He was Italian for centuries but in 1978 he was Polish for the
first time,” even “Pope dies again!” (p. 98)
Property: “The most obvious status of a property is as an inner-space vital relation:
In the space of the blue cup, the cup is intrinsically blue.
“Blending often compresses an outer-space vital relation of some sort into an inner-
space relation.” For example, “Warm coat.” (p. 99-100)
Similarity: “Inner-space vital relation linking
elements with shared properties” (p. 100), like
this blue coat and blue cup.
Category: Computer program is a virus.
(Blending can compress outer-space relations
like Analogy into Category.) (p. 100)
GOVERNING PRINCIPLES
How are the vital relations managed? How does one make a comprehensible blend?
“Achieve Human Scale” has these subgoals:
“Compress what is diffuse.
Obtain global insight.
Strengthen vital relations.
Come up with a story.
Go from Many to One.” (p. 312)
Topology: Preserves distinctions
Compression: Reduces distinctions
Here are some governing principles that help dictate how all this relates to achieve
Human Scale and its subgoals:
GOVERNING PRINCIPLES: COMPRESSION
Borrowing “tight coherence at human scale” from an input that has it for another that does not;
for example, “he digested the book.” (p. 324)
Single-relation compression by scaling.
Single-relation compression by syncopation: “Diffuse structure in an input or across inputs
can be compressed as it is projected to the blend by dropping out all but a few key elements.”
(p. 324)
Compression of one vital relation into another.
Scalability: When possible, compress non-scalable relations like
Analogy, Disanalogy, Identity, and Representation into scalable relations
like Time, Space, Change, Cause-Effect, Part-Whole, Property,
Similarity, and Intentionality.
Creation by compression: adding a new vital relation to the space to help
achieve human scale – Dinosaur Bird.
Highlights compression: The Grim Reaper tells the whole “story of
death” – the scythe for reaping, the robe worn at a funeral, and the end
result – the dead person becoming a skeleton. (p. 320)
GOVERNING PRINCIPLES: OTHER
Topology Principle: “Other things being equal, set up the blend and the inputs so that useful
topology in the inputs and their outer-space relations is reflected by inner-space relations in the
blend.” (p. 327) This works to prevent too much Compression, which tries to compress vital
relations in the blend instead of preserve them.
Six ways to align topology:
1. Default: a relation is projected without change, like the distance traveled by each monk.
2. A relation has no counterpart in the blend: “The presence of only some topology
emphasizes that topology” (p. 325)
3. A relation is projected to the same relation in the blend, but scaled: Time in Baby’s Ascent.
4. Relation is syncopated: “Syncopation preserves ordering but leaves out all but certain
highlights” (p. 325)
5. Compress a relation into another relation, like Analogy to Uniqueness. Capgras’ Delusion.
6. Relation in one input can be the inverse of that relation in the other:
“In ‘digging your own financial grave,’ the direction of causality in the investment input is the
inverse of the direction of causality in the grave input. The investment input has the preferred
topology, but the grave input has the preferred compression.” (p. 327)
GOVERNING PRINCIPLES: OTHER
Integration: “Achieve an integrated blend.” (p. 328) Debate with Kant eliminates German.
Pattern Completion Principle: “Other things being equal, complete elements in the blend by
using existing integrated patterns as additional inputs. Other things being equal, use a
completing frame that has relations that can be the compressed versions of the important outer-
space vital relations between the inputs.” (p. 328)
Maximization of Vital Relations Principle: “Other things being equal, maximize vital relations
in the network. In particular, maximize the vital relations in the blended space and reflect them
in outer-space vital relations.” (p. 330)
This is most important in blends that show the relation between inputs; in blends representing
hypothetical spaces, however, such as blending yourself with a stockbroker you know when
you explore the question “what if I became a stockbroker?” the Maximization of Vital
Relations Principle is not as important – you’re not comparing yourself with your friend, but
pretending to be her and seeing how you feel about that. (p. 330)
Intensification of Vital Relations Principle: “Other things being equal, intensify vital
relations.” (p. 330)
GOVERNING PRINCIPLES: OTHER
Web Principle: “Other things being equal, manipulating the blend as a unit must maintain the
web of appropriate connections to the input spaces easily and without additional surveillance
or computation.” (p. 331)
Unpacking Principle: “Other things being equal, the blend all by itself should prompt for the
reconstruction of the entire network.” (p. 332) Relatedly: Blends can become entrenched.
Relevance Principle: “Other things being equal, an element in the blend should have
relevance, including relevance for establishing links to other spaces and for running the blend.
Conversely, an outer-space relation between the inputs that is important for the purpose of the
network should have a corresponding compression in the blend.” (p. 333)
The relevance principle “guides… construction and
interpretation of the network” (p. 334). Personifying
death makes him wear clothes – but which clothes
should be relevant to his symbolic meaning, and so
funeral clothes are chosen. A punk with a dog collar
isn’t saying “I’m a dog,” but the spiky collar is chosen
to say “keep away,” to be relevant with his or her other
actions. (p. 334)
MORE BLENDS
Counterfactuals: Contrasting the input space of reality with the input space of “what if.”
Are counterfactuals grammatically limited to phrases containing “if” or “then?”
No! Counterfactuals are everywhere. “Gary King, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba, in
Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research, argue that there is no
form of causal inference in the social sciences that does not depend upon counterfactual
reasoning.” (p. 218)
Verbs like “prevent” and nouns like “dent” trigger counterfactual spaces (p. 239).
“Paul believes he’ll get his daughter admitted to Berkely because he thinks Mary is the dean of
admissions” is used as just one example of how we use counterfactual spaces. (p. 238)
MORE BLENDS
“Of”:
“Ann is the boss of the daughter of Max.”
(pages 150-155)
MORE LINGUISTIC THEORY
“Form [words] does not present meaning, but triggers a blend” (p. 5)
“The child is safe” vs. “The medicine is safe” – safe has no inherent meaning, but instead
triggers a blend that has meaning. (p. 143)
Critical of “Formal” approaches, that believe that the only thing that can be behind a form is
more form: “The absurdity would come from assuming that the only thing that can lie behind a
form is yet another form,” like “looking for more armor inside the armor” (p. 14)
名 vs. 实
THE BICYCLE THEORY OF LANGUAGE ORIGIN
The components of the bicycle are long
in developing: gears, rubber, the wheel,
metal, brakes, tire pumps, etc. None of
these components are “early types of
bike,” but when they were all present, the
bike was finally possible.
Language, they propose, is similar, with
double-scope blending being the critical
thing necessary for language (p. 181).
Before it, language wasn’t possible. Just
as there are no “fossil bikes” (as opposed
to earlier versions of “proper bikes” (p.
192)), this explains why there are no
“fossil languages.” As soon as double-
scope blending came about, so, within
cultural (instead of biological) time, did
language and cognitively modern mental
capabilities (p. 181).
THE BICYCLE THEORY OF LANGUAGE ORIGIN
A damaged bicycle might still work, but no one proposes that a damaged bicycle is
an earlier form of a well-functioning bicycle. So we should avoid the fallacy of
believing damaged language to be more “primitive.” (p. 192)
“Just as bipedalism is essential for riding
a bicycle although no one would suggest
that bipedalism evolved to support our
efforts to bicycle, so double-scope
blending is essential for language
although double-scope blending did not
evolve to support our efforts at
language.” (p. 193)
THE BICYCLE THEORY OF LANGUAGE ORIGIN
Children go through intermediate stages when learning language. The authors
compare this to riding with a tricycle, and then removing the third wheel. “No one
proposes that children must first learn to ride a unicycle and then the more
complicated bicycle.” (p. 192)
VS.
IS EVERYTHING A BLEND?
IS EVERYTHING A BLEND?
NO!
IS EVERYTHING A BLEND?
“When we see a table next to a chair, we are organizing them as spatially adjacent, not blending
the table and chair.” (p. 350)
You can have things in the same frame without blending them. For example, you might think
both the table and the chair belong to the same person, or were bought together, or were made in
a certain style or time period, but none of these things are blends. Neither is thinking about going
to the furniture store – unless you are using the furniture store to stand for something else!
“Brains can put together elements in very many ways other than blending.” (p. 350)
