On November 22, I posted the following response to your earlier e-mail
comments on the above subject. Even though the post was too long to
hold the interest of all subscribers to this list, I felt that we were
making progress in isolating the areas of our differences. And I was
looking forward to improving my understanding of these differences and
learning something valuable in the process. So I would appreciate the
courtesy of a detailed point by point reply.
Norm McPhail
>
> > Norman K. McPhail wrote:
>
> > >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
>
> >From golden auras raining down
> to the depths of ocean blues
>
> My rapture leads me all around
> discovering radient hues
>
> >From space/time to the absolute
> 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