"John J. Kineman" wrote:
>
> At 02:05 PM 2/12/99 -0800, you wrote:
> ....
> >
> >John:
> >
> >I think we agree that when we are just examining the macro physical
> >aspects of our rock, it makes sense to use an "or" logic frame of
> >reference. And hopefully, we may also agree that when we move into the
> >non physical realms, the straight jacket of the traditional locational
> >temporal doesn't work very well.
>
> Yes, we do agree more than not. As someone said, however, the devil is in
> the details. But those details of how we might view this may not represent
> any fundamental difference in viewpoint.
>
> >From your piece on the "understanding rock." (By the way, I used the "rock"
> analogy because Rosen discusses it too).
>
> 1. "All this can only mean one thing. In some key way, our rock
> understands. At the pure physics and data
> levels, we can say that the rock has understanding."
>
> I agree with this - that the "understanding" is purely at the sub-atomic
> level, but that this communicates with the structure or "data" at the
> macroscopic level.
>
I'm not sure that the understanding in the rock is purely at the
sub-atomic level. I think it may occur at all levels including the
molecular and the macro physical. For instance, consider the properties
of our rock when it is thrown. Its weight, shape, texture and density
help define its trajectory.
> 2. ".... the notion that data [are] non physical." I do not believe that
> data are non-physical, because the concept refers to time/space attributes.
> Something analogous to data may be non-physical. I prefer to use the less
> defined word "information." But this is semantics, really.
>
We've been through this many times before. To me, data is just a
difference that makes a difference. I know this is ungrammatical
because data is plural, but I think common usage today has blurred
this. Also I use data and information interchangeably, while you have
some specific meanings for data you've developed as a result of your
work. Still for our purposes in these discussions, we've agreed that
data and information are by definition just non physical differences
that can make a physical difference.
> 3. ".....This data will cause it [the rock] to react in certain ways to all
> the data it takes in. I see these two processes occuring on different
> levels. This may be a bit semantic too, but necessarily so. The word "rock"
> refers to the macroscopic object, which is simple (previous posts between
> myself and Don) - a purely simple formalism that resulted from complex
> interactions at the particle level.
John, I am convinced that the notion that we can classify natural
systems and our models as "either" simple "or" complex is an "or" logic
approach to the modeling relation. Far from helping us understand it,
in fact complexity obfuscates Rosen's central theme. To me, the only
thing it does is add greatly to our confusion.
In other words, the simple/complex notion is grounded in our locational
and temporal frame of reference. It has some meaning in the macro
physical realms, but in the non physical realms complexity is an
inappropriate use of "or" logic.
It adds nothing to say that a model of a macroscopic object is simple.
It also adds nothing to say that interactions at the particle level are
complex. And I think it is very confusing to say that a formalism is
simple in some respects just because it is a reductionistic non physical
imaginary model or replication of a natural system such as a rock.
So once again I argue that simple and complex can and should be left out
of the modeling relation discussion. When we are dealing with the non
macro physical realms, we need to use "and" logic. This is the only way
I know of getting past our blind spot. And since the simple/complex
notion is essentially an "or" logic thought mode, I think we ought to
leave it out of our discussion of the modeling relation.
Living organisms, on the other hand,
> retain complexity at a macroscopic level.
Saying that complexity is a characteristic of living organisms has no
meaning. We might as well say that living organisms are alive because
God did it.
"Data" are macroscopic physical
> records (perhaps the entire macroscopic physical world), but interpreting
> data requires a complex system.
Again, saying interpreting requires a "complex" system says nothing
useful. And as I've said, trying to use "or" logic to figure out what
interpreting and understanding are makes no sense at all.
Hence I conclude that organisms can process
> environmental data because they have macroscopic complexity that allows
> them to interpret the data, whereas a rock can only interpret data
> (macroscopic structure) that defines particle state domains.
Sorry John, to me this is a nonsense sentence. Macroscopic complexity
has nothing to do with the differences between our understanding and a
rock's understanding. Go back and read how I characterized this
difference. It too falls short, but it makes more sense to me. And so
far, that is the best I can do.
>
> 4. "... It can't use its free will to move by itself because it has no free
> will." Again, we agree more than disagree that life involves macroscopic
> free will, while a rock doesn't have this. Yet, to be consistent with the
> above, I would say the rock has a form of disorganized (apparently random)
> sub-atomic free will, and so that is the level of its interaction and
> understanding.
I think that the rock's understanding is more akin to what we call an
experience. It processes data in a direct, unfiltered way. There is no
central data processing system and no specialized circuitry to transmit
the raw data to and from central processing.
On an intelligence scale, it would, along with other
> physical objects, define the lowest possible score, with single partical
> events being somewhat higher.
I don't think it is at all helpful to infer that we can scale the
different types of understanding as if it were an IQ test. The way
understanding manifests itself in the physical, life and thought realms
is much more qualitative than quantitative. So it is not helpful to
quantify this understanding quality and pretend we have a lock on it.
Again this quantification attempts to inappropriately use "or" logic
with an "and" logic natural system.
It is crucial to match the logic of our mental model with the natural
system we are focused on. Otherwise, the modeling relation will be
totally out of sync. Let me know if this still doesn't make much sense.
NKM
--------------7BD298DE7EF6FFA80C19FED4
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="norm.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Norman K. McPhail
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="norm.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:McPhail;Norm
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://204.94.86.93
org:N. K. McPhail & Co.
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:norm@socal.wanet.com
title:Norman K. McPhail
note;quoted-printable:Web site address: http://204.94.86.93=0D=0A
fn:Link to web site: THE DAWN OF HUMAN UNDERSTANDING
end:vcard
--------------7BD298DE7EF6FFA80C19FED4--