Glen, >>Or are you simply saying that a metaphysical/supernatural hypothesis like your "creation is beyond language" is a belief that cannot be debated? One either accepts it or one doesn't and no argument is powerful enough to change one's position?<< Yes, I meant something like this, but I prefer to use another, more appropriate, terminology (it seems that Chaitin mean the same): *reality as it is* ("outside" of our perception). I think that perceived image of reality that we claim as "our reality" is not complete and not very accurate as any interpretation. And our evolution (as our consciousness grows from our current level toward our Higher Selves) is also about extension and clarification of this perception of reality. Or we can say: our "reality" is extending (it's an isomorphic expression). It seems that theologians, mystics, philosophers were first to recognize / experience bigger reality behind our "regular" perception of it, and now we need to extend our languages (references) and models to "work" with the same things. I got from Chaitin's lesson that he tries mathematically to articulate something like that... without using a word "divine" :-) P.S. Sometime we recognized that our references point to different perceptions, images of reality, and this is what I meant as an axiomatic level. It's about *to see*, not *proof* (read "convince") because it's prior any proof, even any language. --Mikhail
----- Original Message -----From: [hidden email]To: [hidden email]Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 12:41 PMSubject: Re: [FRIAM] Mathematics and MusicMikhail Gorelkin wrote:
> >>Glen<<
> >>Going back to the original point, I maintain that both the
> act of creation and the act of making occur within what I call
> sensory-motor interactions, not somehow "beyond" or behind them.<<
> No, *nobody* can convince you. He/she can show you but you're the one
> that has.. to see / experience this difference :-) (this is an
> axiomatic level) --Mikhail
It's not clear to me what you're saying, here. Are you simply saying
that I'm stubborn? [grin] Yes, that's true ... and I'm proud of it. As
a good friend once told me: "If your mind is too closed, nothing can
get in. But if your mind is too open, everything falls out."
Or are you simply saying that a metaphysical/supernatural hypothesis
like your "creation is beyond language" is a belief that cannot be
debated? One either accepts it or one doesn't and no argument is
powerful enough to change one's position?
In that sense, I guess we agree, because I believe the claim: "creation
is beyond language" to be a religious claim. I don't believe the claim.
But, just because it's religious on its face doesn't mean we can't shave
down the concept of "creation" (like you did by distinguishing "making"
from "creation") and construct some type of scientific (testable) claim.
For example, we might propose that: Non-linguistic animals can
spontaneously begin using novel food gathering methods. "Novel" meaning
"never before observed in this species". The we can leave it up to the
metaphysicians as to whether or not "novelty" and "creation" are related.
--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |