Brent: to your 2nd question: > The question is, have you ever formed any conclusions or >had any thoughts > that were *not* model based.< I have to go back to (my) 'model' vs. your remark: >The very point of using the word "model" is to remind us >that they are >not reality itself, but only a map of reality.< Our mind (not yet identified) 'thinks' using a materially restricted tool, the neuronic brain. At this point we are still unable to encompass in our mentality the wholeness with all its interconnective impredicativity - so we formulate topically or functionally (or else...) limited (reduced) models. This is what I call reductionism, the possibility of human thinking. Wholistic ideas (now in a birth-stage) widened the scope of such model-restriction and - although we cannot DO it, we THINK of it, calling such unlimited (vague) targets "natural systems" or "maximum models" (Robert Rosen). Conventional science works in well defined (reduced) model - thinking within set boundaries of topical/functional restrictions. There is nothing wrong in the model-view science - except for the trend to draw conclusions from within-boundary observation and apply them to a wider - beyond model - applicability. Human ingenuity made the within-model application most efficient and a basis for our technology - in spite of the uncertainty stemming from a neglect of the effects from outside the boundaries, not recognized in the (applied) math equations set between interlaced model-values.
Answering your above question: for more than a decade or so, I am thinking in terms how to widen the limited model ways of science (I learned) into 'maximum model' terms. It is still "model". since all we can use in our mentality is the partial impact from the wholeness and our 'mind's interpretation of it, eo ipso all we know is I(in my terms) "model". I am not omniscient so I cannot 'think in wholeness' with all its impredicative interramifications. * Your first question, however - > So you have replaced "narrow models" with "mystic-religious" ones? < shows a complete misunderstanding of what I tried to explain twice already in this encounter. I give up. I do not try for the 3rd time to find better understandable ways for explaining my ideas. I have my limitations. Please, consider my initiation for this exchange "unsent". I still will read your posts which I find most interesting. John Mikes ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 2:49 PM Subject: Re: A calculus of personal identity > > John M wrote: >> >> >> --- Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> .....skip >> I'm sure your professors will be disappointed to hear >> that their hard won theories are inconsistent >> with thought. >> JM: >> and so would be all who's 'working' paradigm changed >> in the continuation of the epistemic enrichment - and: >> >> not 'inconsistent' and not 'thought', I referred just >> to consider deemable as a belief based on the science >> mindset rather than on the mystic-religious one. I did >> not even refer to obsolescence, only to a parallel >> between the workings of different belief-systems. > > So you have replaced "narrow models" with "mystic-religious" ones? I have > difficult parsing " > referred just to consider deemable as a belief". > >> >> Inconsistent those ideas became only in due course >> when a newer paradigm changed the ways of speculation. >> And I am speaking here about the boundary-limited, >> (topically etc. 'identified') conventional - >> reductionist sciences (the only one our mind can work >> in including mine of course). >> >> (Earlier-JM:) >> >>>If I give in now to the quark, there >>>is no stop all the way to back to physics 101. >> >> BM: >> Forget quarks. How about giant sea squids? I've >> never seen one of those either and no one has seen >> one alive. Or a DNA molecule? Or Plato? If your >> thought has led you to discard all "narrow >> models", what do you think about? >> >> Brent Meeker >> >> JM: >> Of course I do not discard the cognitive inventory - >> collected over the past millennia, all according to >> the observational skills of the time and explained >> (reductionistically) at the 'then' level of knowledge. >> >> The fact that our ongoing explanations about >> (sub)atomic or molecular models go out from any >> 'matterly' concept does not mean that if I bounce into >> a stone it does not hurt. We just reached a point with >> starting to consider more interconnectedness and >> involvement beyond the 'boundaries' of convention. >> Isn't this list aiming at such thinking (in a (IMO) >> specialized domain? >> Your question is a good one, I wish I had already a >> well defined answer "WHAT" I am thinking about. Ask >> Armstrong, who walked on the Moon, how it would feel >> on a planet in another galaxy. "Different!" for sure. >> I am not denying the 'existence' of unseeable etc. >> features only the firm explanations based on our >> (insufficient) knowkedge for the unknown. > > They are "firm" on in the sense of being definite. The very point of > using the word "model" is to > remind us that they are not reality itself, but only a map of reality. > >>Modelbased >> conclusions for beyond the model. >> I have examples: I formulated model-based conclusions >> over a half century R&D work. - Successfully. > > The question is, have you ever formed any conclusions or had any thoughts > that were *not* model based. > > Brent Meeker > > > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.8/381 - Release Date: 7/3/2006 > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
