I address one fragment of the post below in my own opinion, not required
agreement or general consent to it. Just FYI.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Norman Samish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Doug Porpora" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 12:45 PM
Subject: Re: Determinism

Norman wrote (among others):

>Also, I'm unable to find a meaningful (to me) argument against
reductionism.  Why is it in trouble?  It seems to me that even a complex
human being can be defined in concept by discrete quantum states and
particles, atoms and electrical charges.  "Thoughts" are therefore NOT
infinite because they can be conceptually defined in terms of particles and
quantum states, and there are not an infinite number of these permutations.<

My take on reductionism is the "snapshot style" (in maybe wider sense than
just visual) - considering boundaries for our observation (thinking) and
establishing a model of the 'observed' target WITHIN them.
In the sense of unlimited interconnection (and a/effecting), such view cuts
off
connotations beyond said boundaries (be it Q-state, particles, cinsidered
permutations, atoms, electrical charges or whatever is one's beef). It is a
limited view (model) perfectly applicable for computations. Yet: limited.

My trend in thoinking (in the newly (just emerging) 'wholistic' complexity)
is the unlimited connectivity - not that I claim to successfully apply it.
We all DO think in reductionistic ways - the only way our mind works without
implying (mystical?) infinity - so I cannot belittle your opinion.

I wonder if Doug thinks in the same lines as I do?

John Mikes





Reply via email to