I think Frank & Marcus may be discussing the difference between abstract categories and real ones. Science has been trying to become more 'realistic' for some time, by talking about 'self-organizing' systems as well as 'natural laws', for example, but the discussion hasn't gone the next step, to call physical things 'self-defining' too. What would happen if we used the word 'it' to refer to systems as units of natural organization that didn't need to be defined, but only identified, and so become fit subjects of scientific study?
Sound silly?? It's meant to both point out the fun to be had, and be a completely reasonable suggestion. It would take a structural change in the language of science from referring only to numbers to learning how to refer to real stuff, taking the language of physics to another level. Abandoning numeric measure as the sole subject of hard science wouldn't end the old conversation, not by a long shot, but start a new one, one having the potential of representing complex systems directly with themselves, by referral, rather than with some simplified set of equations. What you get for learning how to do physics using references to real things instead of just measures is a whole new physics and fresh new subjects for the old one. So maybe the question of abstract v. real categories could provide plenty to talk about. Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels > Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 8:22 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Can you guess the source. > > > Frank Wimberly wrote: > > The reflexivity of the relation on the set of humans "hasSameSexAs" > > doesn't depend on what anyone reports or what organs they have. It > > only depends on whether their gender is what their gender is. > Unless it can't be defined as a single thing, in which case the set > cannot be considered reflexive. If something is described > as A or B it > can't be claimed to be A. If something is both A and B, it can't be > called only A. hasSameSexAs could reasonably defined as gender > identity (developmental), gender role (social/legal status), > XX vs. XY > chromosomes, current genitalia, birth genitalia, > hermaphrodite, etc. and > the reflexive subsets over a population could all be different. > > ============================================================ > 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 > > ============================================================ 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
