Posted by
Steve Smith on
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/How-do-forces-work-tp7582853p7582919.html
Glen -
Right. I tried to say that the root of language is the ability to
"point at", but that what we call language is built on top of that root.
But I subsequently admitted that, if _everything_ we do as living
organisms is built atop that root, then saying it's also the root of
language is useless. My subsequent caveat is based on my (massively
ignorant) reading of people like Rosen and such who claim a closure of
some kind is the definition of life.
Good clarification... and I (think we) agree that a nounless
language is an odd thing to consider indeed. I *like* the
nonduality that the rheomode (and I believe Navajo?) carries
explicitly in it's preference for *not* distinguishing subject from
object, but I'm not sure what a process/verb/predicate only language
would be? Maybe creatures such as the Cetaceans are more prone to
this given their somewhat fluid/flux/gradient environment (compared
to our own generally discretized "chunky" environment?) Or
advanced Jellyfish-like Gas Bag sentients living in the upper
atmosphere of Jupiter?
Note that I included not just the appendage with which to point, but the
neurological structure that allows us to empathize.
And is it possible that this neurological structure literally
co-evolved with language itself? I presume you use the phrase
"appendage with which to point" fairly metaphorical as we know
plenty of people who can point quite effectively with: their finger
(pick any one of several for nuanced implication); their gaze; their
shoulder; their head; their chin; their lips... Do Dolphins and
Orcas point? I do believe the ones in captivity have no trouble
understanding various pointing gestures including gaze and
appendage. How much does sharing some basic language (structure?)
get involved in empathic understanding?
That's critical.
E.g. Sometimes my cats will look where I point. But not very often.
For the most part, they look at the tip of my finger. Do cats have
"language" ... well, it all depends on your definition. I would say No,
because they don't have the root of language I'm looking for ... or at
least mine don't seem to. ;-) I'd be interested in the neural
mechanisms of the pointing dog breeds.
I've had pointing breeds and *their* pointer in my experience is
really their gaze, with which their posture follows. I did not
train them in this regard, just observed their instinctual nature.
I've never had a dog that actually understood *my* pointing. I
could drop a bit of food in the kitchen and when asking for help
cleaning it up, no amount of pointing would help right up to moving
the pointing finger they were staring at all the way down to the
actual object. I would do better to just avoid stepping on the bit
of food for a few moments and let the dog find it with their nose.
But silly me, I always try to engage as I would with a human. My 1
year old granddaughter seemed to understand pointing soon after her
eyes began to focus and she seemed to recognize discrete objects.
In her case (and all babies?) pointing started with reaching, a
reach that intrinsically exceeds it's grasp? Perhaps *this* is what
identifies humans and/or sentience... a reach that exceeds the
grasp?
I've had dogs which understand (quite clearly) the gesture of
throwing. In this case, pretending to *throw* something would give
he hint to look or even *run* in the direction where my (pointing)
appendage ended up pointing. I had an Irish Setter who also
understood (halfway) that a thrown object had a shadow (often) and
instead of trying to track the object, would chase the shadow. He
was as fast and he obsessive. When the sun was low, his chase would
trace a long arc, ending with the (tennis ball usually) bouncing off
of his snout which he would then snatch from the air or after
another short chase. I think this might be a rederivation of
Fermat's Principle of Least Time in Optics, by Irish Setter? Oh
yeh, he also only had three legs.
My current dog (a strange mix of chocolate lab and doberman or
viszla?) has a total jones for a laser pointer which has grown to
include flashlight beams. Walking at night with her is totally
strange, you have to be careful where you point the flashlight
because she is *always* aware of where the beam is and will try to
pounce on it as she does laser pointers (just like a cat?!).
Pointing the flashlight in the path for your guests on the way to
their car leads to them tripping over a very eager and focused dog
instead. She even seems to correlate the pointing with the (first
it was my Infrared Thermometer, then a conventional laser pointer,
then accidentally the flashlight) pointing device. A conventional
(telescoping or not) "pointer" means nothing to her except that I
might either throw it for her to chase or *whack* her. Maybe if I
affixed a laser pointer to it?
*Science:*
I think you (again Glen) are saying that the core of science is the
Scientific Method?
Perhaps. But "scientific method" is a hoity-toity word intended (or
accidentally) used to intimidate people.
Nope... it is a phrase intended (coined, adopted, grown?) to mean
one thing very precisely. The Wikipedia entry might broaden it a
bit (note that the W entry is in dispute at the moment), but the
central spirit of this concept remains. The OED's description is
naturally about it's etymology and historical use, but again, still
remains true to the central concept:
"a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the
17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and
experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses." OED
It might get used for what you say (intimidation and dismissal?),
but that is not what it was coined for nor is that what it means
(ok... argue that what it is used for is what it means... but I'm
not sure when that isn't a specious and semicurcular argument?).
But we've been discussing what fairly well defined words mean
already, so I grant you that there can be an issue among common
discourse.
And while many people may *be* intimidated by it's use, I think it
is still a very legitimate (motivated as well as useful) way to
classify a very specific approach to obtaining and building
knowledge. I have great sympathy for other approaches (intuitive
in particular), and don't dismiss them lightly if or when I do. I
understand that there is a large body of people who might use "the
Scientific Method" in roughly the same way as others might use "The
One True Path" or "The Holy Gospel" or "The Chosen People", to
intimidate and dismiss.
What I think we are both talking about is: 1) Taking a(n educated?)
guess that involves causal relations; 2) Formulating a way to test
this guess by *doing something*; 3) Doing something; 4) Observing
the results; 5) Recording the results; 6) repeat any/all of
1,2,3,4,5 until 5 matches 1 (excluding the obvious cheat of simply
adjusting 5 to match 1, also practiced for the purpose of gaining
future funding but generally frowned upon)
There really is no Grand
Unified Scientific Method. There are methodS, emphasis on the S. There
are people who log what they do and people who don't. A scientist is a
person who logs what they do in such a way that others can repeat what
they've done.
So, a) you have to do stuff, not just think. And b) you have to do it
in such a way so that others can also do it.
Hypothesis generation and testing combined with repeatability (by
others) is all I mean by "the Scientific Method". I think you do
too? And yes, within that high level description, there are a
multitude of methodS for every aspect. The engineering approaches
used to set up and execute experiments, different styles of
diagramming and of notating data as it is acquired. And even
different branches of mathematics and schools of thought on
statistics/evidence/error (e.g. frequentist, bayesian, fuzziest)...
etc.
Blatheringly,
- Steve
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com