Glen, 1) >>I'm talking about
real stuff, sound waves going from one to another through the air<< Yes,
sound waves are real, but their real-ness is *meaningless*. Sound waves are not
words. They become words only in a realm of our subjectivity. Not my
subjectivity, but also yours,... our *shared* subjectivity. We call it
*objective subjectivity*, and it has only a "glimpse" of reality, not full
real-ness because it doesn't exist outside all of us. >>light waves going
from one to another through space << it's the same. >>But an English
_story_ about atoms is real. The instructions, training, and usage of an
electron microscope is real<< Any written word is just a meaningless
symbol, hieroglyph as well as their sequence. Actually, recognition of the
difference between a symbol and a sequence of symbols belongs to the same realm
of objective subjectivity. And it is in this realm such a sequence becomes a
text written in English (if we don't know Chinese, all their written wisdom is
meaningless hieroglyphs for us). It means only the presence of a subject
transforms some real-ness into an English text... 2) What is an English word?
For example, "beautiful"? Is beauty-ness real like a sound wave? A particular
beautiful woman belongs to the realm of objective subjectivity, but beauty-ness
is a common (and quite fuzzy) attribute of a beautiful woman, a beautiful
picture, a beautiful weather,... It's a categorization. And there is some
arbitrary-ness here. For example, if I run ART1 algorithm to classify some
things and after all name each result (cluster) as "A", "B", "C",... , than
running the same algorithm with the same things but in a different order gives
me another classification and another "A"-ness! It means that "A"-ness doesn't
exist by itself, it's just a label to separate it from others and this label is
not very clear because different sets may "define" it (differently). And the
label "A" is just a reference to "A"-cluster, which, probably, is the same kind
of real-ness as the cluster itself. In this example, a "meaning" of a word (a
label) "A" is arbitrary... 3) What is a language? It seems it's construction of
references (in the realm of objective subjectivity, which means we should know
how to "interpret" them, how to "connect" them with other constructs in the same
realm), and linguistics deals with "correct" construction *rules* and this
*correct-ness*... --Mikhail P.S. >>How is "my invisible Genius" different
from what I described, namely, "the constructs we infer from observing
ourselves"? In some sense, he (my invisible Genius) is observing us :-) We are
that construct, and we exist because of his presence behind us. But there is
also our low (instinctive, animal) self, and some African artists represent a
man with three faces: his low-, rational-, and higher selves.
--Mikhail
----- Original Message -----
From: [hidden email]To: [hidden email]Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 4:56 PMSubject: Re: [FRIAM] Mathematics and MusicMikhail Gorelkin wrote:
> Glen, from my 4th part, where I was talking about Feynman's saying
> and a difference between *our makes* and *creations of our Geniuses*,
> I thought that it was clear that two "me" are actually: me and my
> invisible Genius (or esoterically - ye, I know that you hate such
> stuff :-) But how about "The Matrix"? - speaking "Higher Self").
> Sorry, it was some fuzzy-ness in my definitions but I think that it
> is an essential stuff in moving toward a clarification... --Mikhail
How is "my invisible Genius" different from what I described, namely,
"the constructs we infer from observing ourselves"?
I'm not that fond of "The Matrix" either. [grin] Sorry. It's a nice
idea; but I don't believe the logical abstraction layer between mind and
body is complete. Our minds are just as real, just as physical, as are
our bodies. So, something that happens to me in the matrix is happening
in reality, as well. Of course, the external _impact_ of something that
happens in the matrix (in our heads) will be either less overall, or the
impact will be convoluted (intertwined). But it's definitely not
insignificant.
Mikhail Gorelkin wrote:
>> 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.
But, languages and other sensory-motor interactions _are_ "reality as it
is" ("outside" of our perception). Perhaps I haven't been clear. I'm
not talking about _my_ solipsist, private perception. I'm talking about
real stuff, sound waves going from one to another through the air, light
waves going from one to another through space, languages as represented
in the dictionary and grammar texts, math as its written on paper or
implemented in computer programs, etc.
This is distinct, however, from the unobservable, non-SMI reality
referred to by physics and biology, which is occult and can only be
gotten at through co-constructed things like language.
Languages are real and independent of any one yahoo's _perception_ of
them. Not only that, they are _more_ real than those a priori things
that we haven't co-constructed.
> 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" :-)
Right. And that is definitely metaphysical and we have little hope of
ever handling such stuff methodically. What we _can_ do is collectively
construct synthetic devices like language and make attempts to capture
our subjective perceptions inside that objective language. Doing so
makes the perception more real than it was before it was made explicit,
which is why I say that things in the SMI set are real but the things
beyond it (e.g. actual electrons, atoms, black holes, etc.) are not.
English is real, atoms are a convenient fiction. But an English _story_
about atoms is real. The instructions, training, and usage of an
electron microscope is real, but the actual electron microscope is a
convenient fiction that facilitates our real interactions.
Sorry for not being clear. Perhaps the above will help. 8-)
--
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 |