----- Original Message -----
From: "A. Mani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu>
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 1:06
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Re: 7. Re: Re: Marxism-Thaxis Digest, Vol 23,Issue
25 (Victor)
7. Re: Re: Marxism-Thaxis Digest, Vol 23, Issue 25 (Victor)
<snip>
How is it wrong? Note, I do not advocate that much can be gained from deep
research into the logical forms, categories, inherent to the individual
human brain, i.e. abstract, qua formal, logic. This is, indeed, the view
of neo-positivist symbol crunchers like the Laird Russel and others of his
ilk. This view, like the idea that the brain is the locus and condition for
reasoning, is essentially a psychologistic one, completely oblivious to the
social origins of human practice and of the significance of communication
for the acquisition, perpetuation and development of human practice.
Now this 'much' in your language is to mean 'everything'. Brain research
has
progressed much. So have formal theories of cognition, knowledge and logic.
These never try to 'capture' meaning as it is but the structure of
information. Assigning meaning is none of the business of formal logic, but
it can say something about what is admissible. There is no native language
inside the brain too. What you are saying is that neopositivist's cannot
distinguish between information and knowledge... and when they try to say
they can, they contradict themselves. But it is rare to find anybody in
psychology who would take 'context independence of brains' seriously.
<snip>
A. Mani
Member, Cal. Math. Soc
RE the brain:
Indeed, our knowledge of the brain has advanced considerably, however this
has in itself very little to do with the determination of the
historical-cultural contents of human brains. True the fact that the
structure and growth patterns of the human brain restricts the assimilation
of certain kinds of information while permitting others does serve as a
condition for subjective sensuality, however these limitations have been and
are compensated for by the socially mediated invention and development of
instruments for transmuting inputs for which we men have no organs to sense
into sensable representative forms; hunting dogs, telescopes and starlite
scopes.
RE the distinction between information and knowledge:
What I've been and am writing is that the Neopositivist's distinction
between knowledge and information is exactly the problem of Neo-positivism.
The necessary unity of essence (meaning) and form (structure) of
information is exactly the basis of Hegel's, Marx's, and Lenin's rejection
of NeoKantianism (and Neo-Positivism). Objective Idealism and Marxism share
the view that information (meaningful communication) represents a real
record of real activity in the real world, and that essence (meaning) is an
absolute necessity for even the most abstract categories of thinking. This
view is in direct opposition to the NeoKantianist and Neo-positivist concept
that knowledge, i.e. substantial information about the world) is absolutely
distinct from information the logical infrastructure of thought, the
meaningless, empty categories of cogitation that reflect somehow the organic
formations responsible for thought.
RE: the utility of formal theories of cognition, knowledge and logic:
In essence formal theories of cognition, knowledge and logic are rules for
reasoning and in this role they do well as specially tailored machine
language. They are, however, not very successful as models for natural
language and much less so for concrete interaction, social or organic*. The
reasons for this are the complexity of complementary, mutual adaptation of
complexly concrete interacting entities which characterizes both organic and
social systems (i.e. the rules and their functions are always in a process
of change in accordance to the substantial conditions of the interaction).
Efforts to model these interactions with rules that do not represent
substantial conditions of their formation and employment are doomed to
inadequacies. After all, when a machine system no longer adapts to new
conditions, a systems designer and programmers are called in to make,
organize and punch in new rules. When even the simplest learning organism
encounters new conditions it changes the rules of its interaction with the
world or suffers. When human beings, complex organisms living in complex
environments, mostly built and perpetuated by communal collaboration,
encounter new conditions either as individuals or as groups, the
multiplexities of rules and the rules that link these rules etc. etc. are
almost entirely social and the changes are virtually impossible to model by
simple logical algorithms.
Victor
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the silly malapropisms produced by google's automatic translations
of German and French. It is sometime serendipitously informative, such as
when I learned that Wallenstein (the Austrian Commander during the 30 years
war) means "boiling stone".
_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
