[Wittrs] Re: What is Analysis?
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 02:18:46 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "iro3isdx" <xznwrjnk-evca@...> wrote:
> --- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "SWM" <SWMirsky@> wrote:
>
>
> > The convincing claim is that there is no grounds for doubting the
> > order that involves stepping in front of a bus hurtling down upon
> > us on a busy street.
>
>
> I'm still not understanding why you use that as an example of order. To
> me, a bus hurtling down the street seems to suggest disorder, not order.
>
It has to do with predictability. If there is order we can make predictions; if
not, it follows that we can't.
>
>
> > Is THAT human imposed order?
>
>
> The bus is a human invention. The bus did not pre-exist us. I'm puzzled
> that you even think that a sensible question.
>
We don't impose predictability on the world. It is either predictable or not.
If we can successfully make predictions a lot of the time, then it follows that
we are picking up on some of this order, at least. I now see that part of our
problem here has been divergent understandings of what "order" means.
>
>
> > Now we CAN imagine that the world is very different beyond what we
> > can know but that doesn't mean that we are either right or wrong
> > about THAT.
>
>
> I can only repeat again, that I am not saying anything about the world.
>
Then what you are saying makes no sense to me. How can you imagine that we can
operate in a random (disordered) world successfully for any length of time?
>
> Let me try a different explanation. I am saying that order is an
> intellectual construct. Order is not made of matter. And therefore it
> is not human independent.
>
>
And I'm saying there is order in the world and that means predictability. Is
this a matter of matter? I would say there is more to the physical world than
just what philosophy has traditionally referred to as "matter". But even for
there to be matter there must be order since whatever it is that underlies
matter must operate according to some order, some "laws" of operation, or there
would just be inchoate phenomena.
> I'm puzzled that you find the idea so difficult.
>
Ditto for my part re: your comments. Thus I must assume that we are simply not
understanding one another. All my efforts to show how the world has order,
coherence, independent of us have fallen on apparently deaf ears and, I
suppose, you are having the same feeling vis a vis your points to me. Different
jargons here?
>
> It turns out that the English language is an intellectual construct, and
> is not made of matter.
No argument (though Josh might object).
> We know this from the fact that in France the
> people speak French rather than English. As far as I can tell, there
> isn't any more difficulty for the French with buses hurtling down the
> street than there is for the English.
>
What has that to do with whether or not there is order in the world? Remember,
this issue arose because I noted that Hawkins' description of intelligence as
the brain's capacity to pick up, retain and reproduce patterns from the world
around us is convincing to me. You responded by denying it on the basis of a
claim that there isn't any order (hence patterns) in the world to pick up and
retain and reproduce. Instead you argued that the brain imposes patterns on
disordered inputs.
Now it seems we have each been talking about something else since I gather you
are not arguing that Hawkins' claim, as I've described it, as mistaken? Or, if
you are, what kind of argument do you have to show that there is only disorder
in the world?
Remember, I am NOT saying we don't impose some degree of order of our own. I am
ONLY saying that a great deal (likely the bulk) of the order we "see" in the
world around us comes from the world. Are we still on different pages over this?
SWM
=========================================
Manage Your AMR subscription: //www.freelists.org/list/wittrsamr
For all your Wittrs needs: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
