[SNIP]
> >
> > Paulo:
> >
> > What about differences of logical typing? These are qualitative
> > differences that are more than just differences in levels of
> > inclusiveness or exclusiveness. .... The simplest
> > example is that the class of all chairs is of a different
> > logical type
> > from the chair you are sitting in.
Paulo Garrido wrote:
> Right. I think that is not contradictory with my example with set
> terminology. The 'belongs_to' relation is not the same as the
> 'is_included' relation. One of the consequences thereof is that,
> as you point, there is a logical type difference between a set and
> its elements. That is because the 'belongs_to' (at the contrary of
> the 'is_included') relation is not transitive. If one can says
> that some giving molecule is an element of a chair, it would make
> no sense to say that the same molecule is an element of the class
> of all chairs.
>
> > ... Hence you get arguments that go on forever about the truth
> > about truth and scientific proof.
>
> I dont know if this relates to your point, but my observation
> about infinite regresses was suggested from the consideration of
> Marshall Clemmens that "To deal with something as a irreducible
> whole means that you do not understand it at all".
I think this notion of not understanding it at "all" creates more
problems than it solves.
This
> consideration entails that if some particle shows to be
> effectively a-tomic, then one cannot understand it.Lets one say
> that the direction of reducing an entity to components is
> analytic a priori and the reverse direction I observed is
> synthetic a priori. With the meaning of understanding established
> by this framei) or the process (flow) of understanding is infinite
> in both directions
> ii) or it must stop somewhere in hitting an understandable.
I think our human understanding does involve this recursive process.
But the synthetic/analytic flow is not possible in accurate models of
systems that are of differing logical types. So technically this would
stop our human understanding if it worked on solely in the
analytic/synthetic mode.
Yet our human understanding is capable of dealing with experiences of
different logical types. So we can experience an understanding of what
Don calls complex systems. But no computer could do this because the
logical types are not comparable or commutable as I think Don says. So
I think we can say that our human understanding is a complex system as
Don and Rosen define the term complex systems.
> > To understand what is going on, you need to experience what I
> > think Don
> > calls the relational complexity of the system. Simply stated,
> > one needs
> > to experience the various qualities of the system. These
> > qualities are
> > not derivable from each other, yet they are still of the same
> > complex
> > system. I would say that these different qualities are of
> > different
> > logical types. So they do not relate to each other in a way
> > that can be
> > computed or logically compared.
>
> Only as a comment: Im not so sure. The class of computational
> functions named as 'recursive enumerable non recursive' has enough
> strange properties that make it a natural candidate to be studied
> in the frame of 'organisms' or 'complex systems'. Or so it seems
> to me.
I know nothing about this class of computational functions. Perhaps you
could give me a quick tutorial.
> > ....I think he is also saying
> > that going up and down a simple system that has multiple levels
> > will
> > never get you to the point where you can understand these models
> > in the
> > context of their relation to other models of the same system
> > which are
> > of differing logical types.
>
> Well, I dont see why the two directions of understanding flow
> should necessarily be up and down in some sense. Besides, along
> what said above, it seems that 'elementing' an entity X inside a
> set XX seems to create a new logical type.
It may be a new logical type, but if it is derivable from the model of
entity X, then it is the same for the purposes of Don's defintion of
complex systems.
> > ...But this does not mean that we ought to consider it mystical
> > or beyond
> > our grasp. Far from it. It just means that it requires a set
> > of
> > thought modes that most Cartsian/Newtonian followers would
> > consider
> > irrational, unreliable and not worthy of trust. Without going
> > into the
> > arguments here, I would just like to suggest that this other set
> > of
> > thought modes I am refering to can be used in such a way so as
> > to
> > improve their reliability to the point where they are worthy of
> > our
> > trust.
> >
>
> I completely agree. Just a comment suggested by my reading of
> Bohm, "Wholeness and the Implicate Order". Cartesian/Newtonian
> thought modes are valid in some domains of existence, at least as
> approximations. Problems arise when one tries to push them beyond.
> Its the old story of "new wine in old barrels". Different thought
> modes for the flow of understanding to go on are clearly
> necessary. But one should not fall in the trap of judging them
> absolute as the Cartesian /Newtonian modes were judged.
Well said. I call these thought modes "or" logic. They work well in
most applications in the macro physical realms. So there is no reason
to change them as an encoding and decoding system for simple models of
these realms. Where it starts to break down is in the realms of biology
and quantum mechanics. Then we need to start using other thought modes
or encoding and decoding systems.
I maintain that when we focus on the realm of thought, "or" logic is not
very useful. It causes what I call a major blind spot. The worst thing
about this blind spot is that it keeps us from understanding how blind
we really are.
But "or" logic is not some foreign kind of thinking that was imposed by
the Cartesian/Newtonian scientists on the rest of human kind. I think
that much of our visual, language and problem solving thought processes
are based on this kind of data processing. This is the same two track
on/off binary system that most of our computers use. So "or" logic is a
built in set of thought systems we need all the time for our own
survival and to function as human beings.
Still we have several "and" logic based thought modes that are different
thought systems. These thought modes require different models to
simulate them. And they are not derivable from the "or" logic thought
modes. We use and experience these different thought processes all the
time.
When scientists try to create a scientific model our thought processes,
most try to use the "or" logic frame of reference for their model. Yet
if we use Don's definition of a complex system and if we assume that our
brains/minds are a form of such a complex system, then it is easy to see
that this "scientific" model is apt to fall short of it's goal.
This is why I think Don's idea is so potentially helpful in resolving
these kinds of dilemmas. It gives us a way to start to understand our
human understanding. And once we understand understanding, we can begin
to understand a whole lot of other complex systems that have been hidden
from us.
Norm McPhail