RE: opinions vs knowledge - The Cave is Constructed

Ted,

You wrote:

 <My point was that most workers in logic have many different logics.
<All are invented for different purposes and distort the reality they
<represent and about which they reason.

I agree that 'logics' are legion. The distortion occurs in the expression
(language) and in the rational process (thought). The corollary is that all
information may be in fact misinformation (distortion of reality)
be it the myth of Oedipus, Seven Day Creationism or Superstring theory.

Remember that old trickster Hermes is the patron god of libraries and messengers.

The flow of information (like the arrow of time) is an illusion.

There is no empirical evidence for a logically necessary link between 'information' and
data, knowledge or truth or for the instantiation of 'information' in rational
processes (or computing). An informational experience is notoriously good or bad
according to its perceived usefulness not its logicality.

<We are talking about...

<4. How the entities involved "express and reason about how things work"

I support your emphasis on what information (and its conceptual family) does rather
than what it speculatively is or means. An example might be the way Don Norman picked up
on JJ Gibson's notion of affordance and incorporated it into the practice of computer design.

Our first task is to identify the substratum of supervenient entities with family resemblances
to our long lost cousin information rather than attempt to formulate a reductionist
Grand Unifying Theory. Intelligent fragmentation of views is inevitable.

As an aside how do you incorporate into your Fourth Domain non-linear concepts
like turbulence, rhythmic entrainment, dynamic coherence, affordance and agility
- all those intriguing mental models which have emerged in recent times
 to enhance and develop (but not overthrow) First Order Logic?

How do we ground expression/reason in 'how things work'?

How do we make moves on the chessboard if we are the pieces in the game?
First Order Logic is like the notation on the scoresheet of a previous match -
good for postgame analysis but not for mate in two. Peircean anthropo-logic
only gets us partially into informational relationships (say through
the opening gambits not into the intuitive middle-game).

My personal theory (at the risk of spamming the conversation) is that we
(and possibly all living organisms) qua species informationis relate to each other
and to the Umwelt cinematically rather than computationally.

We pan towards meaning, focus empathetically or zoom in and out of conversations.
Informational experiences provide us with 'shots' which make varying degrees of sense.

If I'm not misinformed, the emergence of the camera both reflects and furthers
the epistemiologic development of homo sapiens. Computational posthumanism (Fredkin, Hayles)
is really digital reductionism and we cannot unravel the plot of information
by categorical logic or semantics alone.

John H
  

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Goranson [mailto:tedg@sirius-beta.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 10 September 2002 5:36
To: Multiple recipients of list FIS
Subject: Re: opinions vs knowledge - The Cave is Constructed

>It is really have some difficulty to understand how we can think that
>"logic" is a (narrow) human invention!!!????

Fenzl--

(My second posting this week. Limiting to two seems a good rule.)

We are talking about four domains here:

--1. How things actually work

--2. How things appear to work

--3. How we express and reason about how things work

--4. How the entities involved "express and reason about how things work"

Edwina used the term "logic" in the context of Socratic caves,
Aristotle and Peirce. She used terms like "rational" and
"reasonable." To my mind (and many I presume) her use of the term
puts her use in domain 3. My point was that most workers in logic
have many different logics. All are invented for different purposes
and distort the reality they represent and about which they reason.

You used the term "logic" in such a way that means (I think) that
there is some coherent set of laws in domain 1 that result in
reproducable effects. That's different.

As common terms of art in computer science, I use "mechanics" and
"physics" for domain 1, and "logic" variously for the rest. I believe
there is a large distance of abstraction among these four. Edwina at
least believes 2 and 1 are the same or close and "logic" covers both.
Whatever you choose is a religious decision, but there are tens of
thousands of places where you can recount what people said about the
the relationships among 1, 2 and 3. I suppose it has pedagogical
value, but that Christmas tree is pretty well decorated.

I interpret the FIS to agenda to be concerned with domain 4 and
relationships with the others. There are very few forums for this, so
I suppose the focus here to be worth preserving.

I can even claim some small role in "creating" a logic myself. Twenty
years ago a problem somewhat similar to the FIS one was defined in
terms of the restrictions of existing logics. We specified
characteristics of a new logic to design, and essentially established
a research center to do so. I played a minor role in the problem
identification and arranging the funding. The center is still strong
at Stanford. The project was led by our probably greatest living
logician at the time (who died last year). The logic is "situation
logic," which at his death was being extended to "channel logic" to
address something much like domain 4.

Whatever we invent, it will likely be algebra-friendly and exploit
group theory. The route of abstraction among the four domains
(especially 3 and 4) must be formally specified; I am hopeful that
category theory will guide that.

Best, Ted

-- 
Ted Goranson
Advanced Enterprise Research Office