Re: Distinguishability vs fractionability

[Judith Rosen <***>]

Hi John K.,

 

Any perception of something or thought process about something is an abstraction, isn't it? Humans "hear" sound waves differently from bats or dolphins and we "see" light waves differently from bees... We experience "heat" differently from snakes...Our perception of something in the ambience is totally based on the abilities and/or limitations of our sensory organs and our mind's processing/interpreting of those perceptions. So, anything "of the mind" is an abstraction and then anything further that we do in terms of thought or action is more abstraction. But it's all we've got!

 

However, I think that you and I are defining "active" and "passive" differently. I would call observations "passively" imposing the mind on some aspect of the ambience, because the observing mind would most likely be the only one aware of it; the observed is not being imposed upon in any way it could perceive (although the more intelligent an organism is, the harder it is to observe in ways that don't directly impose).

 

Observations and the thought process of distinguishing between systems is certainly an act of abstraction, but I wouldn't say it's an act of fractionation. Taking an organism out of its natural habitat and into a lab is fractionation. Killing an organism and examining its parts is fractionation. I see fractionation more as a deliberate interference-- an external activity-- whereas observation is an internal activity.

 

Again, the practicalities being what they are, it's much harder to observe a troop of Mountain Gorillas without imposing directly than it is to observe Lichen growing on a rock or the hunting strategy of a Preying Mantis, etc. I suppose it also depends on how deeply or how long you intend to observe, as well. A telephoto lens and parabolic mic set up could make observation from a distance more fruitful than it otherwise would be.

 

Judith

PS: That kind of observation always has fascinated me. I always loved watching the Cousteau documentaries growing up, and the Wild Kingdom series. One of the new ones that's really fantastic is Jeff Corwin's show on Animal Planet.

 

> John K. wrote:

> I think its a matter of degree. Observation directly involves
> abstracting, which  I must consider "actively imposing the mind on some
> aspect of the ambience". Also, observations, if we were to consider them
> fractions, are indeed not re-synthesizable to get back the complex
> reality. So they conform with the inequality of analysis and synthesis
> and are themselves analytical. I would have to class them with
> fractional concepts of nature, but then I think what your father was
> most referring to in fractionation was more elaborate theories build on
> observations that compound the problem and lock us into a mechanistic
> understanding, rather than just a recognizable limit due to what is
> observable.
>
>
> Judith Rosen wrote:
>
> >Tim's insight into the difference between distinguishability and
> >fractionability illustrates exactly what my father was referring to in the
> >excerpt I posted from "Life, Itself". One can distinguish without
> >fractionating because the process is in the mind. The mind is also where
> >science originates. Indeed, this is precisely why my father felt that theory
> >must precede experiment and go hand in hand with all applied science.
> >
> >I would question whether observation is an act of fractionation, as John K.
> >suggested in his post, though. Observation is a necessary adjunct to
> >distinguishing. As such, it's a passive activity in and of itself.
> >Fractionation, on the other hand, is actively imposing the mind on some
> >aspect of "the ambience".
> >
> >Judith