The Taos
Discussion
Macro-cognition bead thread
discussion à
Monday, September 12, 2005
Perhaps the point of our discussions about the limitations of mathematics and mechanistic science is to remind us that there is amble evidence that these limitations have real consequences.
I address part of the literature on the limitations of the type of formal systems that are based on a numeric model "of all ontology", ie about all realities.
http://www.bcngroup.org/area3/pprueitt/kmbook/Chapter2.htm
but it is with sadness that I cannot make a complete review of the relevant literatures.
There has been very little support for my work all of my life. This is not an excuse, but is reality. It is a social reality shared by a number of good minds.
Paul (Werbos) your life has been blessed in the extreme with NSF (and other) support, although I know that there are aspects of deep physics that you have to contribute but that you have not gotten to.
I now nothing about the claims of the two web sites that Amnon is referring to. What I do know is that mainstream science, academic and industrial, sadly misses the point most of the time in regards to a theory of reality.
The causes of this mistake, or categories of mistakes, are numerous; and in most cases not addressable by mere mortals.
But we fall back on assumptions, such as made by Paul Werbos in his recent note to us. Experimentation about some types of things may not be straight forward, and may in fact fail to deliver evidence in the way expected by the assumption that empirical evidence and theory work together to discover truth.
As Paul W points out, the academy is replete with scholars whose attachment to non-sense borders on the profound. The notion that a computer has been designed or could be designed to have sentience is one of these profound phenomena. My analysis is that this false theory would never have lasted had it not been for government support of unworthy work.
The influence of business on IT and the knowledge sciences is seen in Dennis's note to us and to the discussion that followed.
http://www.bcngroup.org/beadgames/TaosDiscussion/33.htm
The problems that I am working on have to do with the academic entrenchment. How to reform this educational system from the outside in, given that the system is not tolerate of reform and renewal from the inside out. Educational renewal is the focus, since without some difficult type of culture we can not correct the polemic in cognitive science and in the soft sciences, much less the single minded ness of physics.
The reform has to be driven by politics, but then we have to address the failure of the political system.
Mathematics education reform has been a non-useful focus for so much discussion that our society no longer has any way to frame the issue of causes.
The situation at New Mexico Highlands University is typical of situations that exist around the nation, and have existed all of my life; I am now 54. But in this case, I may have some political and economic leverage on decisions that might be made by the President's office (Manny Aragon).
It would be helpful if the group would help me focus on this educational renewal issue, rather than to go off once again on some dispute over the Lorentz notion of symmetry in physics.
The dispute might be one leading into an elegant digital Glass bead Game; but only if there is a willingness to go to core issues and to treat other opinions with respect. I would enjoy this discussion, and Paul Werbos has identified the symmetry question as being how this bead game might start. I am willing to post the communications, if the conversation with Amnon and Paul (W) and perhaps a few others is respectful that there are points of view that are not consistent with each other.
Multiculturalism is suggested. I respectfully suggest that coherence is a phenomenon on which the brain functions, and cite Pribram's work among others. The notions from logic assume that logical coherence is the gold standard for science and the discovery of truth. But this assumption seems flawed from the beginning, as well as necessary to the development of cultural agreements. The paradox is available to us immediately.
One can accept this paradox, as sometimes an indication that there is a structure to reality that is not captured within a single coherent viewpoint (or theory). Penrose (quantum mechanics) and Witten (string theory) both make this argument, that no single coherence theory has been found (am I right?)
This note from me today already has a lot of challenges, and difficult to know how to respond to.
But let me illustrate where a type of "ontological incoherence" comes in. First in profound differences in cultural thinking such as found between native American Old Way with a focus on natural processes sensed introspectively, and the academic sciences. This sensing can bring one into a type of harmony with other animals that are also sensing reality at the same time. Thus the stories about a hawk flying over head.
The natural harmony is rooted in the experience of the moment, and thus if there is a structure to how reality is organized by the collective perception of all living things, this reality may not have coherence from one moment to another.
Without at least being open this type of analysis up, there is no way for the "white" man to understand Native American thought.
I developed the Process Compartment Hypothesis in 1995 to make a first attempt at creating formalism, similar to the formalism I saw in Quasi Axiomatic Theory and Soviet era semiotics, developed from Mills and Peirce.
http://www.bcngroup.org/area3/pprueitt/kmbook/Chapter1.htm
This work in incomplete.
Paul Prueitt