Paulo Garrido wrote:
> Norman, you wrote:
>
> > Paulo Garrido wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > In set terms: the first direction of flow means that to
> > understand
> > > an entity X1, one should take it as a set, one should be able
> > to
> > > discriminate the elements x1, x2 ...xn of X and to establish
> > the
> > > relations Ri holding among them, as elements of X.
> > > The second direction of flow means that to understand an
> > entity
> > > X1, one should be able to take it as an element of a set XX,
> > > discriminate the other elements X2,...Xn of XX and to
> > establish
> > > the relations Ri holding among them, as elements of XX.
> > >
> > > I dont see any reason apriori to exclude any of the directions
> > of
> > > understanding flow. (In particular both give rise to infinite
> > > regresses, which can only be stopped by some postulated
> > > nominalistic stops like "the fundamental particles" or "all
> > that
> > > is"). Its seems to me that one may gain from putting the two
> > > directions of understanding flow to work together.
> > >
> > > Paulo Garrido
> >
> > 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.
>
> 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". 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.
>
> > 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.
You need to see Rosens counter argument...it is long and involved so I
won't try to summarize it here (been at this all morning am am
fading...sorry)
>
>
> > ....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.
again this is dealt with nicely in the papers and discussions of
analytic vs synthetic models.....I should add that there are a list of
other attributes synonimous with these
>
>
> > ...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.
again.....the approximate nature of these is the crux.....they never
will get you back to the complexity of a real system
> 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.
>
> Best
>
> Paulo Garrido
respectfully,Don