Hey, Steve:
In addition to the points raised in my response to Phil, let me expand a bit on my 'truth' rant. First, I wrote this in Word, so asked Encarta to define 'truth' for me. It returned several definitions, including 'God'. I like that one a lot because it calls to mind a story told by a pal who is a retired dean of religious studies and philosophy. While leading a world tour of religious sites for youth from various traditions, he observed the following conversation over dinner. Christian: Let's talk about the character of God. Hindu: Which god? Buddhist: Who cares? As I got further into the list, I encountered these 'definitions': (I've dropped the redundant ones and numbered the remainder for reference.) 1. Something factual - something that corresponds to fact or reality 1. Obvious fact - something that is so clearly true that it hardly needs to be stated 1. Something generally believed - a statement that is generally believed to be true 1. Descriptive accuracy - accuracy in description or portrayal 1. Conformity - adherence to a standard or law Without going totally epistemological, let me say that numbers 1 and 2 deal with truth as an accurate representation of fact, while 3 and 5 are relative to culture. Using 3 and 5, we can say that in Galileo's time, it was 'true' that the sun revolved around the earth, because it was generally believed by his culture and ratified by canonical law. It was 'true' in the sense of these definitions, but 'untrue' according to our current observations and understanding of astronomy. So 'the truth' in that situation, was an emergent property of a system of belief imposed by the Church. The Arabs knew at the time that the earth revolved around the sun, so to them, the Church's position was 'untrue'. (Interestingly, so was theirs in that the heliocentric model they believed in was not contained in a larger system. Perhaps we might label it a 'half truth'. Eeek!) The problems with numbers 1 and 2 seem obvious to me. Facts shift. Old ones are reinterpreted. New ones emerge. DNA was destiny 10 years ago and RNA was junk material just hanging around to give shape to the genome packets. Imagine the careers in tatters over that one today. So in 1, 2, 3 and 5, truth is a squishy and relative thing. Nothing more, really, than an expression of whatever the dominant culture – scientific, theological or secular – believes at the moment. The 'truth' emerges from the cultural context. (The oppressed or counter culture may well have a very different truth.) Number 4 is a little more interesting, and we have to push further into semantics to explore it. If you and I are standing looking across a river at a house on the other side, and I say, 'That's a blue house,' is it 'true'? What if you're colorblind? What if I am? What if it's the angle of the sun on a green house or the reflection off the river on a white house that makes me see it as blue? If we want to parse it, we can use a descriptive language system (the name of which I've now forgotten) that uses an entirely different frame. In it, my 'truthful' statement would be, 'I perceive a house across the river that appears to be blue on the surfaces I can see.' Entirely accurate. And entirely subjective. No assumptions built in, even if I'm on acid and / or it's 'really' a very large armadillo. I still see it as a house, and it still appears to me to be blue on those surfaces within my view. Your truth, however, may be entirely different. Perhaps your glasses are at home and you can't see a house at all. Perhaps you see it as an armadillo. Perhaps I have a history of lying to you, and you refuse to believe anything I say. In any case, the 'truth' whether there is a house and whether it's blue, is an emergent property of the CAS known as the observer. (An elephant is rather like a tree.) AND the acceptance of the other agents in the system. If you don't accept it, it's 'not true'. (We'll leave out 'reserving judgment' for this discussion.)
One of the important features of CAS would seem to be that it inherently
studies subjective phenomena. Not subjective in the sense that every observer can see something different, so much as subjective in the sense of highly contextual up to and including the observer. Yes. And it might also be said that a CAS studies phenomena subjectively. While the human body gives us certain sensors and the dominant culture gives us certain models, overlays and filters (we might also say prejudices), these are further narrowed or enhanced by our own experiences and neural patterns based on individual realities – education, upbringing, being dropped on our heads as a child . . . They can also be diminished or enhanced by other interventions. You have binoculars and corrected your astigmatism with lasik. I'm astigmatic and wearing scratched sunglasses.
Lies and Truths are "duals" but not opposites, not symmetric. I wonder
what your (collective and individual) take on what Lies are in CAS as compared to Truths. I would suggest that 'lies' in a CAS (I would actually prefer 'untruths' or 'not truths' in this context) are any input / stimuli that perturb the system but do not match the validation heuristics of the system. (Whatever those may be – they vary with the system in question.) For example: Derek Jeter is the best player of his generation. Can't be. I hate the f'ing Yankees. That was the point of my original post. 'Truth' is squishy, relative, judgmental and primarily negating. Our claim to it is most often to self-justify, rather than enhance wisdom or relationship. Personally, I would like to get away from the whole concept of truth and lies / untruth and talk instead about accuracy, validity and fitness of visions, concepts and models. Especially regarding the observable realities of the nested and multiple CAS's in which we live and work – initial conditions, rules, relationship, identity and network – and how we intervene at those levels in an attempt to create a better future for our children. On 7/14/07, steve smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jul 10, 2007, at 8:32 AM, John Goekler wrote: > While I don't disagree with the broad assessments of the Iraq fiasco > presented here, I think we have to very careful about valuing 'our' > truth more highly than 'their' truth. > > There is, after all, a universe for every physicist. > > Is it not possible that 'truth' is no more than an emergent property > of the CAS we might call the observer? (Or the 'reporting party' as > they say in the police logs.) This is a very interesting thread... considering "truth" to be an emergent property... it seems compelling on first blush. One of the important features of CAS would seem to be that it inherently studies subjective phenomena. Not subjective in the sense that every observer can see something different, so much as subjective in the sense of highly contextual up to and including the observer. > Or as they say in the spook biz, 'Whose truth? Which truth?' This kind of relativism (especially in the spook business) is really awkward "spiritually" but I do look to CAS, etc. to help provide a more scientific handle on epistimological considerations of complex systems. As for the Iraq war, I know plenty who are pro-war, both on principle and in practice with this war. They are either hawkish in their nature or overly pragmatic (in my opinion). I personally have no use for this war (or any systematic act of violence) and find most of the rhetoric and value systems around it extremely questionable... but most of my anti-war friends are not much help either... they make up their own lies about the lies and then believe *those* lies are better than the ones they are fighting (they are only better for me in that I am sympathetic with their spirit). Lies and Truths are "duals" but not opposites, not symmetric. I wonder what your (collective and individual) take on what Lies are in CAS as compared to Truths. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
