>
>On Sep 19, 2008, at 10:17 AM, Len Yabloko wrote:
>
>> Pat,
>>
>> I was not arguing that the model does not represent anything real or
>> that reality somehow does not matter. I don't suffer from
>> positivism. But at the same time I recognize that reality can not be
>> comprehended mathematically or otherwise. It is you who seem to
>> insist that complete mathematical comprehension is required for
>> progress.
>
>Not at all. I never said anything about being complete. Of course all
>descriptions are incomplete. But they can still be true. And the role
>of semantics is to account for this, analyze what it means, etc.. (01)
Then may be I misunderstood where your and Johns's positions differ. I admit
-it is hard for me to follow, but I do "sense" the relevance of it. And so I
would like to understand why you objected to 'represent' being the relation
between the model to the actuality. You seem to be implying that while you can
represent knowledge using model-theoretic semantics - the same can not be said
about actuality. To me the word 'represents' means the same as 'interfaces' -
that is serves as a conduit for interaction and (limited) comprehension. (02)
>
>BTW, of course reality can be comprehended. We do it all the time. We
>don't ever get complete comprehension, maybe, if that means what I
>suspect you mean by it. But I didn't say anything about being complete
>(in this sense, ie comprehensive, all-knowing). But its still the
>actual bridge that falls into the river when the cables break, not our
>incomplete comprehension of it. (03)
But what difference does it make for us in general and for your's and John's
discussion? The truth of any statement depends on initial assumptions and
inputs obtained from some representation. The role of semantics is to make a
sound connection from later to former. Moreover, semantics can not be fixed,
but must allow for cycles of expansion and compression to accommodate growth
and physical limits. Isn't that what you call two-stage semantics? (04)
>
>Pat
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 18, 2008, at 6:49 PM, Len Yabloko wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 18, 2008, at 3:21 PM, Ed Barkmeyer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Chris Menzel wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, Ed Barkmeyer wrote:
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> As to the rest of John's posting, I refuse to be drawn into a
>>>>>>>> discussion of the power of either mathematics or logic. I am an
>>>>>>>> engineer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And you won't discuss it because, as an engineer, and hence as
>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>> familiar with bridges, moon shots, computers, the web, and the
>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> wouldn't exist but for the power of mathematics and logic, it
>>>>>>> isn't
>>>>>>> worth discussing something so obvious? Right on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed. That power is well documented and in evidence. But
>>>>>> whether
>>>>>> mathematics can correctly capture "reality", as distinct from how
>>>>>> much
>>>>>> of the derived and quantified property called load it will take to
>>>>>> collapse the bridge, is not my concern.
>>>>>
>>>>> In brief: omit the scare quotes. By 'reality' I mean something
>>>>> very
>>>>> mundane. All I mean is that when an engineer does some calculations
>>>>> and then says "the cables aren't strong enough to support the
>>>>> deck",
>>>>> that she really is talking about the cables and the deck. That is
>>>>> what
>>>>> "reality" means in this example: the real, actual stuff that the
>>>>> engineer is concerned with, the stuff that will collapse into the
>>>>> river if mistakes are made. She is not talking about a model of the
>>>>> cables and the deck, or about representations of the cables and the
>>>>> deck. Who would care if a model or a representation fell into the
>>>>> river?
>>>>>
>>>>> Pat
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My answer to that last question is: those who leave by that model
>>>> and representation do care.
>>>
>>> Um... not sure I can parse that. ("leave by that model"?)
>>>
>>>> Perhaps all they care about is the model, because all they know
>>>> about reality is the representation.
>>>
>>> Yes, of course. All we every know of reality is encoded in
>>> representations of it: mental representations, many of them. In fact
>>> the prime lesson of current cognitive science seems to be that we are
>>> in a very real sense made of representations, a kind of self-
>>> maintaining self-referential tower of representation. But it doesn't
>>> follow that these representations are not OF REALITY. To think that
>>> because all we have is a representation, that therefore the
>>> representation isn't really OF anything, is a very deep and
>>> pernicious
>>> fallacy. Representations are useful precisely because they are
>>> representations OF something real. If they were not, they would be no
>>> more use than dreams. When the Verrazano Narrows bridge collapsed, it
>>> was a real bridge that fell, not a model or a representation of a
>>> bridge.
>>>
>>> Pat
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
>40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
>Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
>FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
>phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
>
>
>
> (05)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (06)
|