[MD] Food for Thought

[ian glendinning]

Very good Case,

That rings bells with me too, maybe I just re-read it in Prigogine ?

It's the same as DM's point i think. A clear model (the world seen
through a lens) can only be an approximation to reality. Reality
itself can only ever be fuzzy when seen directly. (Interestingly I've
used the concept of creeping up on, or squinting  obliquely at
reality, rather than approaching it directly, where one tends to get
"blinded by the light".) The more metahpors the merrier.

I'm going to have fun dredging that one up for DMB every time he
accuses me of being unclear. My riposte can be "ah, but I'm therefore
closer to the truth" ;-)

Ian

On 1/2/07, Case <Case at ispots.com> wrote:
> Ian,
>
> You remind me of Bohr, who was asked "Then tell me, what is complementary to
> 'Truth'?" Bohr's immediate response was, "Clarity".
>
> While the scientific paradigms may improve the clarity of our vision we
> don't necessarily find ourselves looking at the Truth. If we take off our
> glasses; we may see the Truth but be unable to distinguish its relationship
> to anything.
>
> Case
>
>
>
>
> Brilliant Case, glad you're concentrating, you're making progress I think
> ...
>
> So what ? OK I agreed already definitions are semantic arguments for
> dummies. So in that sense I accept your sentiment.
>
> I also agree with your Kuhnian "lens" metaphor. I didn't intend to
> make any pejorative statement about dogmatic paradigms ... quite the
> opposite in fact.
>
> But, in your final para ... this is where we syhthesise your points
> and Dan's with mine ... I had said "self-reflective consciousnes IS
> the distinguishing feature of the cultural (3/4) level from the merely
> biological / living (2) level ... It is the feature that enables
> symbolic manipulation etc ..."
>
> You replied
> > [Case]
> > True dat. But coming from my recent forays into consciousness it is
> > important to add the consciousness emerges at those levels it is not
> > divorced from the underlying levels. Note that I am still will to use
> levels
> > as general pointers but I don't see them as fundamental.
>
> I guess what I'm saying is that whilst the layers are not independent
> - they are additive Dan said - in a geometric sense you said - I agree
> with both, there are "more fundamental" (more "significant" maybe)
> distinctions that we can identify between ...
>
> 0 and 1 (Quality itself enabling Physics)
> 1 and 2 (The Physical enabling Life)
> 2 and 3/4 (Life enabling Self-Consciousness)
>
> Than there are between ...
> 3 and 4 (social and intellectual).
>
> None of the levels is truly "fundamental' in any axiomatic sense, but
> some distinctions provide a much more powerful "lens" than others in a
> pragmatic sense. The 3/4 distinction is not one of them - a very fuzzy
> lens so far.
>
> The real power of such lenses is in their "explanatory value", not
> their defintions. No ?
>
> Ian
>
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>