Nick,
Those were Glen's words, not mine.
*-- Russ Abbott*
*_*
*** Professor, Computer Science*
* California State University, Los Angeles*
* My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688*
* Google voice: 747-*999-5105
On 04/22/2013 06:53 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
And is it possible that this neurological structure literally co-evolved
with language itself? [...] How much does sharing some
basic language (structure?) get involved in empathic understanding?
Yes, it's entirely possible that they happened to
That's a _great_ counterfactual suggestion, to imagine science without
language. The way I see it, science consists of transpersonal behaviors.
I know this definition is (almost) peculiar to me. Sorry about that.
But science is unrelated to thought at all. It's all about methods and
getting
, April 22, 2013 9:42 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] science and language (was How do forces work?)
That's a _great_ counterfactual suggestion, to imagine science without
language. The way I see it, science consists of transpersonal behaviors.
I know
, April 22, 2013 9:42 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] science and language (was How do forces work?)
That's a _great_ counterfactual suggestion, to imagine science without
language. The way I see it, science consists of transpersonal behaviors.
I know
I agree that the closure of the feedback loop between peeking and poking
(experimentation) is the root of science. Of course, perhaps that's not
much of a statement _if_ that's the root of everything, as maybe the
autopoiesis guys might claim.
An interesting question is what would the _medium_
How would you say E = MC^2 without language?
*-- Russ Abbott*
*_*
*** Professor, Computer Science*
* California State University, Los Angeles*
* My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688*
* Google voice: 747-*999-5105
Russ Abbott wrote at 04/22/2013 10:21 AM:
How would you say E = MC^2 without language?
I don't think a scientist would say such a thing. But I also don't
think E = MC^2 is science.
Yes, I know. After saying that, you will (again) think to yourself that
it's not worth talking to me. ;-) But
It sounds like you're saying that theoretical science isn't, i.e., that
theory and abstraction isn't part of science. Do you really believe that?
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 10:35 AM, glen g...@ropella.name wrote:
If I manipulate machine X with buttons Y and Z, then A,
B, and C obtain.
*--
Russ Abbott wrote at 04/22/2013 10:59 AM:
It sounds like you're saying that theoretical science isn't, i.e., that
theory and abstraction isn't part of science. Do you really believe that?
To be as stark as possible, Yes. It's metaphysics, which is how we make
sense of, give meaning to,
There isn't much in today's science that I personally can use to manipulate
the world. Much of it provides the foundation for devices that other people
build through which I manipulate the world. How does all that fit in?
Are you saying that only engineering is science? There is a nice definition
The implied division of labor in the preceding is that science figures out
what the forces of nature are and how they work; engineering uses that
knowledge to manipulate those forces (for the benefit of mankind). Would
you say it differently?
*-- Russ Abbott*
I would say that the product of the scientific enterprise is knowledge. If
that's the case, then the question becomes how one expresses that
knowledge. Is it possible to express knowledge without language? Doesn't
any expression of knowledge imply a language?
*-- Russ Abbott*
Russ Abbott wrote at 04/22/2013 11:19 AM:
The implied division of labor in the preceding is that science figures out
what the forces of nature are and how they work; engineering uses that
knowledge to manipulate those forces (for the benefit of mankind). Would
you say it differently?
Yes.
What is Language?
What is Science?
What is Engineering?
What is Metaphysics?
It seems that Glen is confronting us to sort these out a bit
more/differently than usual. I find your (Glen) presentation of these
concepts idiosyncratic but generally to good effect. I almost always
flinch and
Yes, I think how knowledge is recorded includes the machines that do the
recording and the playback. For example, knowledge recorded on a
magnetic tape is _not_ really knowledge if we don't have a tape player.
Only when the tape is played can we call it knowledge.
Russ Abbott wrote at
, April 22, 2013 12:35 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] science and language
Russ Abbott wrote at 04/22/2013 11:19 AM:
The implied division of labor in the preceding is that science figures
out what the forces of nature are and how they work
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
18 matches
Mail list logo
