Hello Neil I was missing your writings here, I believe Sam as well.
Detectives look into special traces and the basic idea is that they base their findings in a sort of distrust. They need somehow to distrust the sorrounding world. Otherwise they would not get the deepness needed to undercover the crime. Your inner cop most surely has a lot to tell us. Scientist I believe do the same with their stuff, also researchers, psychologists, lawyers (God save us all), writers, actors, my uncle Rita, everybody. So... Al this is to try a point about reading, which is not as naif as it looks. The question is about Nature (we have to give her a name), when certain level of certain hormone is reached, the system decides to trigger certain action. That action has nothing to do with the hormone itself, which is the "chemical messenger". There is a message, so something is needed to "read" it. And the text of that message, to me of course, can only be regarded as a geometry question. Actually I dont believe there is a reader. "Nature" is our own abstraction. But then, why should be us any different. Same applies to DNA, and Alchemy btw The organ, the hormone and the system need to agree on the message, and I can only imagine matching perfect "forms", no room for ideal/ concrete differences here. Perfect in this sense needs to be real. (what a mess) Carlos On May 22, 8:53 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote: > I can never envisage complex shapes and geometry. I can get into > approximation (like approximating the area of a circle with > triangles). When I see an argument I don't generally find myself > going to summary; it always seems to expand (though I do 'summarise' a > lot to 'bolloxs' or 'taken as already read'). The cop left in me > still separates 'evidence' from 'piss and wind'. A few years back, > watching news of the Soham killings (of two young girls), I found > myself 'alarmed' when the killer's girlfriend came on. She seemed > just a concerned person who had known the kids at first, but then I > started to feel something wrong (the killer, Huntley was not known > then). What I felt was that she was doing was using her work as a > teaching assistant with the girls to impress 'me' that she had cared > so much about them. To the cop in me, this was 'sign' of psychopath > behaviour - I can explain why, but it would take ages. The actual > investigation was a total cock-up to that time, before some serious > detectives moved in. This was very much my reaction before hindsight. > > Now, I could be telling this story now to impress on my 'cop > ability'. Even saying this could just be some sort of 'deferral > ploy'. We are complex shits at times! I was right, but this isn't > the point either. The occasion of a moment like this is hugely > complex. And it's not just an occasion of hunch, or even recognition > of micro-expressions or whatever. Or about playing detective. > > 'Sam's video' above strikes a chord in me. Nearly all I hear on > climate problems has nothing to do with them - it's mostly just media > dorkism. Our 'arguments' need to be understood in terms of what they > 'may really address'. Years ago, I bought an academic book called > 'Audiences' hoping it would 'address' this - it didn't and was just > dross. > > Hard to get anywhere near what I mean at the moment. I like Francis > Bacon's 'Idols'. Try reading him - it's bloody awful and I can barely > cope. There are around 11 idols to be found over 4 texts - and 4 of > the Idols are really significant. I find something like them in > Berkeley and Wittgenstein. Most of all this writing may as well be > dark energy. > > Now, I'm not talking about being able to 'read sign' about character > or truth like every fuckwit and her dog pretend they can just before > the bastard shafts them or as they become Captain Hindsight explaining > how they knew. It's not psychology. > > This won't help directly either. What is the geometry of argument? > How does it form hubs? As argument algorithms produce hubs of control > can we identify them? Blather I know, yet we now have an algorithm > that can work out control in complex systems - potentially ending > 'economics'. > > http://barabasilab.neu.edu/projects/controllability/is about such an > algorithm - reported in Nature May 12th 2011 (there's a google gadget > for Nature). > > I'm not making linear sense - yet we could see my reaction to the > killer's munter as a node address, Bacon's Idols as nodes - and maybe > on to my interests about nodes of fear and other matters 'hidden' > hyper-addressed in argument. From psychology to lingustic forms > revealed? > > On May 22, 5:38 am, Sam Carana <sam.car...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > Cheers! > > Sam Carana > > > On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 1:28 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Excellent Sam! > > > > On May 21, 12:55 am, Sam Carana <sam.car...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Good to hear from you too, Carlos, an excellent post! > > > >> I always like to explore similarities and differences between maths > > >> and language. I love your idea of form (geometry) as a more likely > > >> basis of maths than arithmetic. > > > >> However, let's be careful not to fall into Socrates/Plato type of > > >> assumptions of native knowledge. The square of the hypotenuse might > > >> equal the sum of the squares of the other two sides of a right-angled > > >> triangle, but that only works within a context that is artificial in > > >> the first place. After all, in nature something may have a certain > > >> length at a given moment, but the next moment the temperature will be > > >> different, resulting in expansion or contraction of the material on > > >> which the triangle was drawn, etc. Yes, such expansion may take place > > >> over the entire triangle, but not exactly the same in each part. > > > >> Anyway, my point is that scientific analysis may, by taking something > > >> in isolation, take things out of context. > > > >> Let me get back to language, to show what I mean. I sometimes think > > >> that the meaning words is formed more through relations in the brain, > > >> rather than that meaning existed inherent in the word. Observations > > >> are stored in our brain and the links between observations, as stored > > >> in our mind, determine their meaning, rather than that meaning was > > >> inherent in words. > > > >> Applying that idea to maths, the value of a number would be determined > > >> by its place within a sequence of numbers, i.e. its value being > > >> relative to the other numbers, allowing one to zoom in and out, > > >> magnifying the sequence, while remaining the relationship between > > >> numbers. > > > >> Again, let me go back to language, to show what I mean. Language is > > >> often seen as based in words that are part of verbal language (audio). > > >> However, as you say, it makes sense to use form (video) as the basis > > >> of meaning. Form is part of our visual perception. We recognize things > > >> visually, because their form remains the same, as we approach it (zoom > > >> in and out). > > > >> Thus, it makes sense to argue that much of the meaning of words is > > >> founded in forms, as part of visual perception, even though many > > >> linguists have traditionally regarded most languages to be more > > >> audio-based. Indeed, for centuries teachers have used the institute of > > >> school to remove many visual parts of language (such as gestures and > > >> body-language), as if only the audio was important, then further > > >> stripping language even of intonation and other life, to end up with > > >> written words, as if words in isolation constituted the perfection of > > >> language. As a result, children all over the world have spent much > > >> time translating written words from one language into the other, while > > >> in the process losing their very ability to speak. Indeed, school may > > >> seem a great way to preach religion, but it's not necessarily the best > > >> way to prepare children for life. > > > >> Interestingly, there's also something like form in the audio part of > > >> perception and, as I said, it comes down again to relationships. > > >> Volume is something that is perceived relatively, i.e. a single sound > > >> becomes loud after silence, while a similar sound could be perceived > > >> as soft when accompanied by louder sounds. Pitch is more relative than > > >> absolute, i.e. relationship forms the sound, rather than the > > >> instrument. > > > >> In conclusion, science all to often takes something in isolation, when > > >> studying a phenomenon. Their research then looks at the instrument > > >> only, to conclude that the instrument formed the sound, while in > > >> reality, sound is each time formed in a different context making the > > >> instrument sound differently every time, and is primarily formed by > > >> the player of the instrument, rather than by the instrument on its > > >> own, which conclusion makes a mockery of many research findings that > > >> did strip people out of the picture in an effort to focus on objects > > >> only. > > > >> I encourage scientists to include more context in their work. Not only > > >> would this make more people gain interest in their findings and > > >> conclusions, it would also enrich their research method itself, which > > >> is all too often analytic only. > > > >> Where a research team finds it difficult to look at wider impacts and > > >> importance of things, it could try and include members who are more > > >> inclined to use such perspectives (I'm making a pitch for > > >> epistemologists here). > > > >> Anyway, here's an example of a group of scientists who do make an > > >> effort to step out of the box and reach people who typically don't > > >> read scientific papers. It's a rap video by Australian scientists, > > >> called: > > >> I'm A Climate Scientist, > > >> at:http://sustainable.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=2814749793... > > >> Please do have a look! > > > >> Cheers! > > >> Sam Carana > > > >> On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 5:40 AM, einseele <einse...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > I'm not a mathematician, I'd love to be one oh yes, but a simply > > >> > linguist for Spanish and Portuguese. > > >> > Even so, language has something in common with Maths. > > >> > May be there are other points to discuss, but my intention today is to > > >> > say that the part they share the most is something which clearly shows > > >> > the difference between discrete elements and a continuum. > > > >> > In language there are forms which can only be considered as discrete > > >> > units, they mean nothing and their only mission is to differentiate > > >> > from each other. Each of this forms is unique, and it has an unique > > >> > position within a chain, an address. That chain is conventional. > > >> > And there is also a continuum which is the space of meanings, > > >> > whatever this means. > > >> > Like in "Romeo and Juliet" we understand? their love regardless the > > >> > letters R O M E and etc. > > > >> > Back to Math this represents the same relationship that exists between > > >> > Geometry and Arithmetic. > > > >> > IMO the World/Nature does not use numbers but forms, so somehow can be > > >> > said that Math can only base on Geometry. > > > >> > Numbers are to Math, like information to Language. > > >> > Math and Language can only base on forms, that is what they have in > > >> > common, IMHO of course > > > >> > -- > > >> > You > > ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
