RE: opinions vs knowledge - a View from the Cave

This is in reply to Pedro's comments:

>[Edwina]
>As for the truth being rational, I believe that our world does operate
> >logically rather than randomly. Certainly, randomness exists as
> >well as freedom (not the same thing), but, overall, both freedom and
> >logic interact in a 'logical' manner. And our perceptions must
> >always be open to validation, or, rejected. I can continue to believe
> >in a flat earth, but I must allow that belief to be open to proof.
>
[Pedro] The fraction of living happenstances in 'our world' that can
finally be put
> into a formal, logical scheme is astonishingly small. Including the
> sciences themselves (not to speak about the economy and our social life).
> That is the hard fact that for instance put into a modest scheme the Art.
> Intel. great hype of decades ago. Cellular and neuronal 'intelligence' are
> orders of magnitude above their artificial counterparts, based on
> principles and 'new maths' that we do not contemplate appropriately yet.
> Logicism, in the way it is treated above, is not definitely the main engine
> behind individual and social accumulation of knowledge. So, to put it a
> couple of words: 'economy' versus 'entropy', without forgetting
> 'complexity' and 'elegance'.

[Edwina] No, I'll disagree. I don't think that our world is 'put into' a
formal logical scheme. I think that it exists and operates, within
itself, within a logical set of interactions. If not - matter could not
interact with other matter except in randomness. That would result
in a heat death of our universe. The fact that randomness is not the
only agential force, is due to the reality of a 'logic of relations' within
matter. I don't know what you mean by 'economy' versus 'entropy. I
would think that both are required (ie, compression of information to
generals and release of energy). Equally, your reference to
complexity and elegance are unclear to me.
> >
[Pedro]
> The reality of the external world in the context of science is a discussion
> of its own (I recognize it has been postponed a couple of times here--some
> day it has to be treated). More than establishing a logical 'truth' the
> problem of life becomes capturing the 'relevance' of the different
> cognizing perspectives that can be applied into the context. One can
> produce endless logical statements about any occurrence --stumbling upon
> the most relevant aspect of the occasion is the biggest problem, which
> usually we take for granted. In the context of the different sciences, I
> call it the 'interdisciplinary problem' --what of the multiple existing
> bodies of knowledge would apply given the numerous surrounding constraints?
> In my opinion it could be subsumed under the intricacies of the 'abduction'
> conceptualization (thanks a lot to John C. for his posting with the abd.
> stuff he checked about)

[Edwina] I'm unclear about the above comments. One can produce
endless anything - both logical statements and postmodern
relativist statements. Abduction is the development of a new
hypothesis for organizing interactions/relations with the world. It
acts as a logic.
>

>[Pedro]
 The most relevant piece of knowledge is, in this case, the new concoction
> of ecology and neurobiology that Allman and others have developed
> (curiously, in parallel with the growing 'eco' impact upon the emerging
> evolution-development field --evo-devo). For Homo sapiens, the violence and
> nurturing behavioral complexes are definitely well separated between the
> sexes (it does not mean that they are not 'plastic' and can be relatively
> molded by social life). The neuro and molecular stories underlying our
> emotional and behavioral (eco) adaptive traits are just fascinating. This
> is not the old sociobiological reductionism, it is great interdisciplinary
> science, really sober and prudent (and perhaps, lacking the spice and the
> hot conflicting elements, it has not make an impact: 'salience' and
> 'relevance' do not always go hand with hand). Then, in what extent can
> social life counteract nature's propensity designs? I do not really know,
> but I have scholarly references about the contemporary rate of violent
> crimes of men vs. women in Western countries: it is about an order of
> magnitude (10 to 1).

[Edwina] Strange. I have scholarly references about the rate of
violence among men and women - and it's 50-50. Not 10-1. But 50-
50. Two of us did a study of this a few years ago (published in the
journal Sexuality and Culture), referring to violence among both
men and women. Despite the feminist claims of 'men are violent'
and 'women are nurturing', our data base showed 50-50. And it
wasn't simply our own data but referred to other studies.
>
>
> >[ET] I disagree with the statement that 'information is knowledge-
> >independent'. It is knowledge-dependent. What is going on, in the
> >universe, is an evolving 'knowledge' where bits of matter are
> >'informemd' (set up into relations). These relations operate within a
> >logical interaction; they are not random or the matter would rapidly
> >dissolve. The relations, as operative in the logic, are knowledge-
> >dependent. But, this knowledge cannot be isolate. It cannot be a
> >self-asserted belief. It has to enable information 'bits' to emerge
> >that are validly operative in the real world. Also, there is no such
> >thing as a 'primary matter' in the sense that the emergent
> >information is a copy of it (that's Platonic, and I'm not a Platonist).
> >There is primary energy which is formed, by logical relations, into
> >matter.
>
[Pedro] That�s quite a cosmological scheme. I am really curious
on what physicists
> would say about it.

[Edwina] Well, I work with a few physicists on these thoughts. Now
I would never say that because some physicists like the scheme,
then all physicists do or should. I'm only saying that my views are
discussed with me, by physicists, who agree with the perspective.
You can, of course, conclude that we are all living in our own cave.

> To put an end to my comments:
> John H. is preparing the next batch of papers --Florido, Benking, Brier,
> Fuchs. Let us enjoy in anticipation, and let us start the readings...
>
> best wishes
>
> Pedro
>
>
> =========================================
> Pedro C. Mariju�n
> Fundaci�n CIRCE
> CPS, Univ. Zaragoza, 50018 Zaragoza, Spain
> TEL. (34) 976 762036-761863, FAX (34) 976 732078
> email: marijuan@posta.unizar.es
> =========================================
>

Edwina Taborsky
Bishop's University Phone:(819)822.9600 Ext.2424
Lennoxville, Quebec Fax: (819)822.9661
Canada JIM 1Z7
Received on Fri Sep 6 15:01:50 2002