> >You apparently did not fully understand the questions I was asking and
> >one of the main points I was trying to make. The point was that to
> >successfully model, understand and deal with a given system of a
> >particular logical type, we need to adjust our thinking so that it is in
> >sync with that system. This is akin to the measuring issues that Don
> >and Bruce are talking about.
> Francis Heylighen wrote:
> I have no problem with that. Different types of systems need different
> types of models, languages or even "logics" to describe them most
> accurately. No model or language can perfectly or completely describe any
> kind of system, so you always need different, partial representations. I
> have made a PhD thesis exactly on that topic.
Francis:
I think we agree on this point.
> >As far as I can tell, most scientists, including yourself, fail to
> >adjust their methologies or thought modes to suit the logical typing of
> >the area they are attempting to figure out, model or deal with.
>
> I don't think I fail to adjust my thought mode. I think you fail to
> understand my thought mode.
It is quite possible that I misinterpreted some of the statements you
made in an earlier post. Recall that what I focused on was the phrase
". . . merely subjective choice. . . " What I was concerned with was
what seemed to me to be a pejorative reference to subjective choice as
opposed to something else, presumably objective choice. In fact, the
point you were trying to make was that it might not make sense to assume
that there is such a think as a mimimum level of complexity.
Again, what I was concerned with was the inference that "mere subjective
choice" was not a valid approach to anything we might be interested in
trying to figure out. This is a common assumption that many scientists
and academics make. But from the above paragraph, I take it that all
you were trying to say was that in this specific case, subjective choice
may not be very helpful in understanding the meaning of complexity. In
other words, you were just trying to make the point that our notion
complexity is usually relative to the context within which we are
working.
Still, logical types generally are relative to some subjective choice we
humans have made, are making or will make. So the context we choose is
almost of necessity to some degree a product of subjective choice.
Thus, as you say later on in your response, perhaps we ought not to put
too much stock in logical types. On the other hand, I don't know anyone
who would propose that moral values can be understood by applying
Einstein's special and general theories of relativity. Most of us
assume that the theory of relativity has nothing to say about moral
values. They are of different logical types.
You seem to have some prejudice against
> scientists in general,
The word "prejudice" means that someone has pre judged something or
someone. In this case, you are suggesting that I have pre judged
scientists in general. In a sense, you are correct. For I have not met
or taken a poll of all scientists. So I can only say what I have
learned from the scientists I know or have known as well as what some
have written.
Generally, my experiences are that scientists are thoughtful,
considerate, cautious, responsible and constructive members of their
communities. Most of them are good parents, spouses and friends. I
respect and appreciate the opinions and goals that most scientists have.
So I can say that generally I pre judge most scientists favorably.
Still, I find that they do tend to look at most things through what I
call an "or" logic knot hole. What's more, my experience is that it is
difficult if not impossible to help them understand this. On the other
hand, while we all have difficulties getting past "or" logic, most non
scientists catch on much quicker. Here it is worth noting that my
experience is that religious fundamentalists seem to have as much or
somethimes even more difficulty with our human blind spot than
scientists do.
a category to which I belong, although I am a not
> very typical exponent of it.
Perhaps one of the things that sets you apart from your fellow
scientists is that you recognize the value and usefulness of adjusting
your thought modes to the logical typing of the area on which you are
focusing.
>
> >Thus a scientist or computer specialist or mathematician might attempt
> >to deal with political or cultural issues with what has been called
> >their "monological" approach to everything. And just because they talk
> >about or use a wholistic systems approach or recognize what they call
> >emerging properties does not fundamentally change their approach. If
> >you can see that we can't explain social change by using the laws of
> >physics, you ought to be able to see that mathematics, number systems
> >and the scientific method are also out of sync with the real system
> >under examination.
>
> If you would go so far as to claim that one should abandon the scientific
> method, I don't follow anymore.
If you interpreted that I was saying that the scientific method was not
useful then let me correct that interpretation. In the appropriate
context, it has been amazingly successful in advancing our human
understanding of the physical universe we live in. Anyone who would
attempt to argue otherwise, would need to blank out a significant
portion of our present day existance.
For me the scientific methods simply says
> that you should express your ideas as unambiguously as possible,
Am I correct in assuming that this ought to apply equally to one's
feelings and sense of values as well as questions of moral and ehtical
standards?
so that
> everyone would as much as possible understand them in the same way
> (formalization),
Am I also correct to assume that by "everyone" you mean another human
being or else a specific group of human beings? I can't imagine that it
would make much sense to try to explain the meaning and significance of
the U. S. Constitution to all citizens of the Republic of China in
English. Even in their own language, they would be hard pressed to
understand the meaning of our Constitution in the context of their
experience. For example, look at what a difficult time the Russians are
having assimilating the fundamentals of freedom, democracy and free
markets. These are contextually dependant notions that come from our
experiences which sometimes differ in significant ways.
and so that their implications can be tested
> (operationalization),
The word tested necessarily infers that we are comparing one thing,
process or notion with some other thing, process or notion. I would
also point out that these comparisons may or may not be useful in
improving our understanding. This understanding depends on lots of
uncertainties some of which we may not be able to control or isolate.
For instance, what if we were trying to compare our feelings of
attraction to a color. If you like red and I like blue what can we say
beyond expressing our personal response. How can we test the meaning of
such a personal experience? Is the experience of red good and the
experience of blue bad as your next phrase implies?
thus allowing us to retain good ideas and abandon bad
> ones.
By what standards are we supposed to judge good ideas versus bad ideas?
One of the main points I've tried to make is that the very notion of
good versus bad is an "or" logic assumption. "Either" an idea is good
"or" it is bad. That logic may not make any sense depending the context
or the set of assumptions within which we frame it.
Furthermore, I want to suggest that we ought not to attempt to escape
all the subjective choices we must make to define that context. We
might agree on those choices, but that does not change the fact that
they are still personal choices that can make a huge difference on the
results of our comparisons and tests.
> If you don't accept that, I don't understand what you are doing here
> on the PRNCYB mailing list, where after all we are trying to clarify ideas
> so that they can in principle be applied and tested in some way.
I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Do you mean to
infer that because I don't accept the basic set of assumptions that all
participants on this mailing list must accept before they can
participate that I ought to stop participating? Or are you simply
saying that if I don't accept your definition of the scientific method
and adopt your standards of good and bad ideas to evaluate the results
of certain tests, that I ought go somewhere else? Or are you trying to
say that because no one else is saying these things and no one else
agrees with them, it means that the ideas I'm trying to express don't
have any value or merit? Or are you saying that since you don't
understand the points I'm trying to make, perhaps they don't make any
sense to anyone and that I therefore ought to cease making these
comments on this mailing list? Perhaps you meant something elso
entirely.
>
> The scientific method does not apply merely to one type of system, it is a
> "metamethodology".
Are you saying that because the scientific methodology works with more
than one type of system, it must work for the whole universe of ideas
that we are capable of considering? I've said above that the scientific
method works spectacularly well in certain ways within certain contexts
and on certain types of real systems. But in my opinion, it doesn't
work equally well in all circumstances and in some contexts it is
downright confusing and sometimes it even leads to distructive models
and conclusions.
It does not give you one type of model, but a way to
> investigate models of whatever type.
My contention is that it doesn't work for all types of real systems or
models. And I think for most people this is so obvious that it doesn't
need further explanation. In my experience, scientists are just about
the only ones who think otherwise. Who seriously thinks we can
understand morality or ethics simply by applying the scientific method?
Similarly, mathematics is a
> metalanguage, which does not claim to describe "the world as it is", but
> which gives you a tool to create different types of models or even
> different types of logics (yes!). Of course, some domains lend themselves
> better to mathematical modelling (e.g. particle physics), others less (e.g.
> poetry). But that does not mean that you should a priori exclude the
> possibility to make mathematical models of poetry.
This is a good example. And I agree with your open minded approach.
But how would you attempt to explain the meaning of the following poem
through mathematics:
AT THE HELM
to the depths of ocean blues
My rapture leads me all around
discovering radient hues
this bliss sails free and true
Transcending and yet shining through
the whole of me and you
>
> You should simply remember that a model is only a model, not the one and
> only truth.
I agree. But let me remind you that you seemed to suggest above that
mathematics, the systems approach and the scientific method work on
every thing, anything and nothing and in all contexts. Or perhaps I
misinterpreted what you meant again.
> All models are incomplete. Some are better in one respect,
> others are better in another respect. Unless you can give me a "logic" that
> perfectly describes the system you are talking about, I don't see any
> reason not to try describing that system with a different logic.
I'm not talking about a system. I'm not talking about a meta system?
I'm just suggesting that some thought modes work better in some contexts
than others. I'm also saying that from my experience, it is helpful to
pay attention to the logical typing of the realm we're in and then match
our thought mode to that realm. Still, I am aware that these logical
typing differences are not absolute. So one realm can differ from and
be the same as another realm at the same time.
But note in the realm of macro phycics, one object can't be in two
places at the same time. It must "either" be in one location "or" it is
in another location. You can't phycisally be in two places at once.
This is a fundamental principle of "or" logic.
Yet in the non physical realms of thought, "or" logic is just a special
case of "and" logic. Thus I can be in many non physical places at once
just as I can be many non physical things at once. For example, I can
be a son, father, grandfather, husband, citizen, friend, employee,
employer, driver, business partner, financier, investment banker,
writer, student and taxpayer all at once with no trouble at all. Of
course things may get a tad hectic now and then, but still I can be all
sorts of things and play all kinds of roles at the same time depending
on the context.
All it takes is a little "and" logic and this makes perfect sense to
anyone who understands the nature, context and meaning of these words.
Does it make any sense to use the scientific method in this context? Do
we need to throw out the bad ideas and retain the good ideas about all
these roles and descriptions of who and what I am? Is it a good idea to
be a father but a bad idea to be a son?
> All
> "logics" work to some degree. Some work better for one type of system,
> others work better for another type of system, but none works > perfectly for
> any system.
I agree.
>
> > My question remains: Why do you think scientists in
> >particular keep making these mistakes over and over again?
>
> What are precisely these "mistakes" that we are being accused of, and why
> are they mistakes? You seem so convinced of your own point that you don't
> even do the effort to argue that the other position is wrong.
I've tried to point out what these mistakes are above. And it is not
that I think that the scientific method, mathematics and "or" logic are
wrong. I'm just suggesting that in many contexts and circumstances they
are inappropriate. I'm also suggesting that in some situations, this
inappropriate use can produce unintended consequences that can sometimes
turn out to be distructive.
>
> >> In conclusion, there are important differences between biological and
> >> cultural evolution, but not to the degree that both cannot be encompassed
> >> within the larger "blind variation and natural selection" paradigm.
> >>
> >
> >The above statement is overwhelming evidence of the validity of the
> >point I tried to make above.
>
> Apparently, you have already decided that whatever I call a "blind
> variation and natural selection" paradigm is just wrong logic which cannot
> be applied to both cultural and biological evolution.
I didn't say this paradigm couldn't be applied to encoding and decoding
models of cultural and biological evolution. I just cautioned that
cultural evolution is of a different logical type than biological
evolution.
We have found that to some extent, the scientific method and "or" logic
work in helping us understand biological evolution. Still, biology is
mainly a macro physical phenomena, while our human culture is mainly a
non physical phenomena. So if we use "or" logic and the scientific
method to study human cultural evolution, we are using these thought
modes in a context where they are out of sync with the non physical
nature of human culture.
In other words, just because the scientific method and "or" logic work
well in the realms of physics and biology, doesn't mean that they will
work at all in the realm of human cultural evolution. In fact, it is
not difficult to show conslusively that this misuse of "or" logic can
lead to misleading interpretations and disasterous consequences. Thus,
we ought to be very cautious about the validity of any conclusions or
insights which come from this inappropriate use of the thought modes we
use to successfully understand the physical realms.
> I suppose you mean
> that each should be described by its own logic that has nothing to do with
> the other.
Not necessarily. Remember that I said that "or" logic is a special case
of "and" logic. Thus if we use "and" logic to encode and decipher the
contents of cultural evolution, that necessarily means that there will
be a place where we can use "or" logic with meaningful results.
> As I said, unless you can give me a "logic" differently from
> mine which perfectly describes cultural evolution, I see no reason why > I
> should not attempt to understand it with a "variation and selection" logic.
I don't think I ever said that we ought not to use the variation and
selection paradigm anywhere except the macro physical realms. Still it
is crucial to incorporate "and" logic thought modes when we apply it to
a mainly non physical realm such a culture. And there are other
paradigms such as connectism and what I call "probleming" that are
useful and constructive in helping us to understand our selves, each
other and the world we live in.
>
> This is just one method to tackle the problem among many, which of course
> will never answer all questions.
I agree.
But I just happen to believe that this
> "logic" is extremely flexible, much more so than the logic of physical law,
> or whatever logic I expect you to propose, and therefore it seems like a
> good heuristic to start tackling an intrinsically very complex problem.
To some extent, we seem to be saying the same things from different
perspectives.
>
> I suspect one of your problems is that you seem to think that the "logical
> types" are absolute, universal categories, which are intrinsically
> different and therefore cannot be described using the same tools.
As I've said above, logical types are mostly subjective choices we
humans make. To some degree, each of us differs in our choices of
logical types. However we can and do find it useful to work together to
narrow down our logical typing catagories. For some of these catagories
we can refer to the physical world around us to help come to agreements
about our various logical types. But if there is nothing physical to
refer to, then we simply have to trade meaning back and forth until we
can come to some measure of agreement.
> But that
> assumption itself is an arbitrary "logic", which believes that the world
> can be split up in discrete categories.
I generally agree that we can't arbitrarily split everything up into
discrete catagories. However, it is still helpful to have catagories.
We just need to recognize that they are fuzzy catagories with both
differences and similarities.
> I happen to think that a more
> flexible logic would start from the observation that any two systems are
> both different in some respects, and similar in others.
I call this "and" logic at work. So I can say that the realm of thought
and thinking is both different from yet the same as the realm of life
and living.
> The degree of
> difference can vary continuously between systems. A more flexible logic
> would therefore be able to describe similarities, if necessary only at a
> very high level of abstraction (such as "both are systems" or "both can be
> observed"), as well as differences.
But what if we are dealing with abstractions that are trying to compare
realms where only one is a system and only one can be observed? And how
would we go about comparing two realms where neither could be observed
and neither could be thought of as a system?
>
> For example, although there is a very important difference between living
> and non-living systems, they can still both be characterized by properties
> such as organization, structure, energy, development, etc.
I could not agree more!
> With some effort
> of the imagination, you can also conceive of systems that are kind of
> intermediate between life and non-life (e.g. hypercycles, autocatalytic
> sets, etc.). If you ever want to explain the origin of life, you will need
> to conceive of such systems. How would you ever be able to describe such
> intermediate systems if you have one logic for living systems and another
> one for non-living systems?
In my opinion, "or" logic generally works well in the realm of macro
physics. In the realm of living systems, however, we must begin to
introduce some limited use of "and" logic thought modes. Thus we seem
to agree here too. In other words, in some cases it helps to have logic
systems that span the gaps between logical types.
However, there are some situations where we can't get from one realm to
another with the same thought modes. The abortion issue is a good case
in point. How do you get from the physical view of human life to the
spiritual view? Just as important, how do you jump from the spiritual
notion of human life to the scientific notion of life? What do we do in
these cases? Must one perspective be wrong and the other right? This
is "or" logic in action. Would "and" logic make any difference in this
dilemma?
> This is a question I have asked more than once
> to Don Mickulecky when he emphasizes Rosen's essential distinction between
> living ("complex") and non-living ("simple"), but I haven't yet got a
> satisfactory answer.
I've tried to point this out to Don too. The problem is that they are
using "or" logic to define the differences between complex and simple
systems. "Either" a system is complex "or" it is simple. As I think
we've said above, complex and simple are often relative to the context.
I am of the opinion that the whole notion of complexity is a dead end
that leads nowhere but to confusion and misunderstandings.
Still, for me this doesn't take anything away from the amazing insights
to be gained from the modeling relation. I think it is a real
breakthrough to understand how two models that can't be derived from
each other and that can't be fully understood by any metamodel can
relate to each other in ways that produce new qualities.
Norm McPhail