[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index] 

Re: resolving trouble - arena for resolution

Howard, and John,

Re: these by Howard:

> On the other hand, science would get nowhere without
> Cartesian doubt and the disputation that must follow.

snip

> I disputed with Bob for 40 years while maintaining a
> most enjoyable friendly relationship. We would have
> been bored and irritable if forced to talk only about our
> areas of agreement.

I would like to suggest that a great arbiter of good theory,
a great arena by which to decide if one will agree or not,
can be action, implementation, application, embodiment
and all these in the context of survival and thriving, as in
continuing and increasing the quality and quantity of life.
In this approach it seems to me that agreement or
cooperation becomes the more general and more useful
mode compared to competition and disputation. But I do
agree both are required. Here's why...

Here's a quote from Popper I like that I see related:

"... I do not really believe that we shall succeed in creating
life artificially; but after having reached the moon and
landed a spaceship or two on Mars, I realize that this
disbelief of mine means very little. But computers are
totally different from brains, whose function is not
primarily to compute but to guide and balance an organism
and help it to stay alive. It is for this reason that the first
step of nature toward an intelligent mind was the creation
of life, and I think that should we artificially create an
intelligent mind, we would have to follow the same path."
(Popper & Eccles, 1983)

The main part I like is the brain/mind function being
connected integrally to guiding, balancing and staying
alive. (He says "organism" but I say "ecosystem" but I'll
leave that alone for now.)

Such a forum for deciding when to agree and when to
disagree can be complex and ambiguous. For example,
if survival is the guiding goal, and if we have two
competing theories or models for some crucial aspect
of reality that effects survival, then rather than pick just
one - to choose a single model as if the two best are in
competition in some zero sum, true/false, predicative
way - we might choose to implement/apply/embody or
realize/instantiate BOTH models. This may link to the
precautionary principle and may also be a generally
functional approach (and maybe the one used by life
itself). It to me acknowledges the certainty of
uncertainty and the impossibility of a single largest
model. One quick example for life is that we might say
from one angle that the key challenge is to harness and
store energy; while another perspective, model, theory
might say the key is actually to dissipate energy. While
these seem at odds, a complex mediation of them
would result in implementing, realizing both
simultaneously and seeing if we can resolve the
apparent paradox in a real system. And also see if this
process of resolution itself confers survival ability. One
other analog is binocular parallax - two eyes, differing
views, apparent difference in an object's appearence,
result of resolving the apparent differences between
two valid "truth claims" is a third dimension and better
image of reality than either eye alone can provide.

While I agree that disagreement is needed in order to
winnow down to two or a few top models, theories,
etc. for a given context, I would disagree to any
implications that there is no harm in the Cartesian
epistemic cut *if it is left to be a dominant nearly singular
model by itself*. Likewise, while it may be that the
Cartesian and mechanistic approach is required for life
and viable theory-action, I again think that as operating
alone it can do more harm than good. It is akin to the
corrupting influence of absolute power to let a single
mono-model have excessive dominance. The need for
checks and balances is just as acute in science and
viable action-theory for life as it is in governement, in
my opinion.

Dan



John Kineman wrote:

Hi Howard,
These are interesting points. For me, having this list is important
because it tells me what I can build on.

On your last point, of course there are disagreements, as you say. I
don't mean to deny legitimate disagreement. I was thinking more of
process than status. We almost always exist in a status of some
disagreement and agreement. Sometimes the disagreement is between two or
more perfectly valid points. Clarifying the disagreement is good for
documenting where we are, but it isn't what advances thought, I'm
finding. There seems to be a stronger process of asking what context can
harmonize opposites. I was impressed by Einstein's description of this
process in his small book on how he came up with his theory of
relativity (intended as a public exposé). Most of routine science
distinguishes between right and wrong alternatives within a paradigm.
That sharpens the theory but ultimately leads to revealing some paradox,
which is the great discovery because it is the limitation of the
paradigm. Then, the new context can be considered where the opposites
make sense, and that is a "larger system" of thought. In Einstein's case
it was relativity that resolved the very painstakingly established
inconsistency between a constant local speed of light and invariance of
laws in an inertial reference frame - an apparent paradox of the
classical view. That's what I was alluding to - to look at what two
opposites can accomplish be being combined when we find among us two
fairly certain views on a subject. Chances are each defender of their
view has done some homework and has good reasons to think what they are
saying is correct, but the context is limited. Anyway, I wasn't thinking
about your prior discussion when I made the comment, even though I think
it applies generally.

Cheers,
JJK

Howard Pattee wrote:

John K’s suggestion: Think first how we can agree. Think last, or not at all, how we can disagree. No one's honor will be soiled by this.

HP: Here is a starting list of (disputable) agreements from my previous posts:

Areas of Rosen’s agreement (or at least areas of no inconsistency)
with von Neumann:
(1) the basic modeling conditions expressed by Hertz (and accepted by most other physicists);
(2) the inadequacy of physical laws to explain or model the essentials of life;
(3) the irreducibility (unentailment) of measurement (coding) and model-building itself;
(4) the subtle and complex difficulties of modeling life by any purely formal computation.

with Langton and many Artificial Lifers:
(1) the value of abstract relational models (as contrasted with biochemical models);
(2) the value of alternative realizations of life (other than what exists).

With Biosemiotics:
(1) the importance of information and communication in organisms as distinguished from the physical interactions of energy and matter.

On the other hand, science would get nowhere without Cartesian doubt and the disputation that must follow. It is not the disagreement that is the problem, it is only when it is taken personally. I disputed with Bob for 40 years while maintaining a most enjoyable friendly relationship. We would have been bored and irritable if forced to talk only about our areas of agreement.

Howard


http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/pattee/
http://www.c3.lanl.gov/~rocha/pattee/