Platt:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of Platt Holden
> Sent: Sunday, 26 November 2000 2:45
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: RE: MD Inconsistency, Incompleteness
>
>
> Chris:
>
> Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but it seems you're saying
> logical analysis will always exhibit incompleteness and
> uncertainty due to the way our nervious systems work.
>
Sort of, more so a particular METHOD we use for analysis. A dichotomy is
representative of a dimension (axis is -1 to +1 and takes on the form of a
square wave, a digital, YES/NO emphasis, the assertion of a 'truth'). Adding
dimensions (usually orthogonal) moves us from single to multi-dimensional
analysis. This process is found in Fourier Transforms where we take aspects
(interpreted in the form of waves) and add them together to get closer and
closer to the square wave.. but in principle we can never get the 'perfect'
match, just more of a good approximation.
Thus we introduce degrees of truth. Popper's thinking comes out of the world
of approximations in that induction contains an element of faith that he
disliked in Science.
Since our senses have limits so we can reach a point where we can no longer
resolve differences, and the extention of our senses through instruments
moves us from trust in our senses to trust in their extentions. This act
always has a degree of distrust in it, uncertainty, and the act forms a
dichotomy of US/NOT-US that when analysed ensures a range of interpretations
where some will say 'this is all perfect, there is no error' and others will
emphasise 'illusions' etc IOW asking the question, or more so the format of
the question, will include a RANGE of possible interpretations and so forces
recognition of doubt.
What makes people sure about the instruments comes down to faith, where
there is no range, there is an absolute, fundamental sense of 'right' -- but
this can be delusion!
> If so, then your analysis of analysis (a meta-analysis) would, I
> assume, be equally incomplete and uncertain.
>
you lack faith :-) My emphasis is on the properties of the method of
analysis where these properties can be imposed on whatever it is we are
analysing and so we can confuse properties of whatever we are studying with
properties of the method.
When we focus our attention we naturally form a dichotomy of object-of-focus
(the one) vs all else (the many). As you focus more and more on the object
so you exclude knowledge of all else but an object cannot be totally
identified until you place it in the 'correct' context and context is linked
to 'the many'. Mathematics, or should I say PURE mathematics, works to be
context-free (and so the emphasis on PURE, self-contained). Thus I can use
mathematics in ANY context, there are no dependencies. BUT mathematics is
founded on neurological functionality which is founded on millions of years
of heuristics and from that has developed a RANGE bias, possible
interpretations rather than ONE interpretation. This is the flexibility we
have developed as part of our evolution but it also encodes a sense of
'uncertainty'.
The moment you have a range you have doubt. CONTEXT will determine the
'correct' ONE out of a set of potential ONEs and so a mathematical certainty
could change or be 'invalid' depending on the context, this favours truth
being 'local'. This 'correct' ONE can be a delusion but the evolutionary
emphasis is 'if it works, use it'. This is very local and reflects local
'anomolies' which break general rules, you can see lifeforms doing this,
irrational behaviour etc in that they are doing the best they can within the
confines they believe they are in. IOW they LACK choices but are often VERY
certain about their condition (e.g. fundamentalist religions or secular
beliefs).
Classical physics started off by making clear identifications of things,
catagorisations, and so identifying 'this' from 'that', differences. Over
time developed an interest in noticing sameness in things, shared patterns
of expression, and so a need to look BEHIND the thing to find common rules,
algorithms and formulas where many expressions where linkable to ONE process
operating in different contexts. This forces the use of dichotomisations and
as such takes you away from the moment or more so from the 'newness' of each
moment. This gets into Zen etc. in that the method of identifying algorithms
and formulas forces habituations and so responses to stimuli contain a
degree of illusion/delusion stemming from the memory elements entangled with
the physiological response.
Eventually too many anomolies emerge and a 'new' perspective is required
(e.g. relativity, QM etc) and we get into the same loop.
Evolutionary forces 'drive' this in that an infant is the 'final' expression
of genetics and this complete 'form' is then placed in a context for further
refinement, where all of the contained potentials can become actuals and be
improved. Thus the behaviour of the infant is general, stimulus/response.
Very EITHER/OR but lacking precision.
Exposure to context introduces feedback processes where stimulus/response
becomes stimulus/considered_response; the infant learns discernment such
that responses are now selective , sensitive to the degree of stimulus, IOW
increase in context sensitivity/awareness. This leads to a development of a
SET of responses (MANY) to a single general stimulus (ONE). The elements of
the set now become habits and we have returned to stimulus/response -- no
thought. The response is now an act of faith, in intuitively 'knowing' it is
the 'right' response.
This is what recursive dichotomisation does in that it moves from a 'raw'
A/~A to a continuum of possible expressions, of choices, sensitive to
context.
Note however that in this set of choices there is included a choice of
doubt, of uncertainty. It is a natural state in that it forces the lifeform
to seek more data, to withdraw and reflect.
This state will be encoded in all of our disciplines that are founded on
dichotomies, the distinction of YES/NO when analysed will lead to the
identification of an 'uncertain' state not necessarily because it is 'true'
but because it is part of the method of analysis we use to survive. If you
take a dichotomy of A/~A and apply it a number of times to itself so the
absolute states of A and ~A become weaker as a whole set of alternative
states emerge from the middle of the dichotomy. (in mathematics/logic this
middle is called the excluded middle. It is a source of potentials; BOTH/AND
states. This was a pet area of study for Charles Pierce.)
> Result: we must possess some form of understanding other than
> rational explanation. Perhaps, as Pirsig suggests, we should treat
> truths like paintings in an art gallery--find those you value and
> ignore the rest.
>
There is a state that reflects 'total' resonance. It is a general,
unconscious state where the conscious mind has a problem trying to
particularise, you feel as if you are being moved by unconscious forces.
This seems to be sourced in the realm of the 'many' in that that world is
strongly harmonics oriented and a harmonic, or more so a set of, can elicit
a resonance that is overpowering. If consciousness can also identify with it
then the whole process is allencompassing. This suggests that we can state
ONE=MANY in that the ONE is explicit and the MANY implicit but there is also
a transformation process involved.
I think this sort of experience is sourced in pre-linguistic communication
methods, rich qualitatively but lacking quantitative precision. you see this
in the brain in that those parts more associated with the 'ONE' favour
precision of a quantitative type whereas parts associated with the 'MANY'
favour pattern matching and a more qualitative precision; there is a play on
harmonics.
In the brain those areas more associated with the 'ONE' favour FM biases (as
in radio) where there is wide bandwidth and so clarity but it is very short
range and so local, single context. The areas associated with the 'MANY'
favour AM biases, a bit fuzzy due to reduced bandwidth but long range; here
are all of the harmonics, the choices that can be transformed into a 'ONE'.
Thus the area of the 'ONE' is linked to the concepts of 'what WAS/what
IS/what WILL BE' whereas the area of the 'MANY' is linked to the concepts of
'What COULD HAVE BEEN/What IS NOT/What COULD BE'. Dichotomisation mixes
these to give more complex meanings.
Our minds are of course the mixing of 1:many and as such reflect all of the
potential states and 'naturally' this contains a state called 'doubt'. This
is part of the method and need not be 'true', context will determine this
:-)
best,
Chris.
------------------
Chris Lofting
websites:
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:51 BST