dmb said to Krimel: You tell me what you think reductionism is and why it would be considered a problem. I mean that generally. Set aside my complaints and the MOQ and just focus on reductionism itself. What is it, Krimel?
Krimel replied: ...reduction just means breaking big problems down into smaller problems to see how the answers to the smaller problems improve our understanding of bigger ones. dmb says: If that were true nobody would be opposed to it. If that described reductionism, I'd be opposed to algebra. Reductionism isn't just about simplifying complex problems, it is the attempt to explain complex phenomenon by way of the simpler phenomenon from which the more complex phenomenon emerged. Emergence and reductionism are opposed ideas. You might want to look into the idea of emergence. That's what the MOQ's levels are all about. Other thinkers assert this without benefit of the MOQ but the basic idea is the same. [Krimel] So why ARE you opposed to it then, Dave? Reduction 1.0 - Dave has no problem with it. ------------------------------------------------ Krimel said: It can also mean searching for the necessary causes of things. dmb says: I don't see how that's even close. [Krimel] Try Wiki. It might help... Reduction 2.0 - Dave can't figure it out. ------------------------------------------------ Krimel said: It can also happen when one set of ideas subsumes another. As when Newtonian theory subsumed Keppler and Galileo and then Relativity Theory subsumed Newtonian physics or when the MoQ subsumes SOM. dmb says: That would be called epistemological reductionism and is relevant to the history and development of science. This meaning of the term is not relevant to my complaints, however. [Krimel] He can name it but that's about all... Reduction 3.0 - Dave thinks it's irrelevant... ----------------------------------------- Krimel said: Language is reduction of ideas to sound. In this sense reduction is a bit like encoding. We can remove lots and lots of the original, thickness of experience without significant loss of meaning. dmb says: That is definitely your weirdest answer. It would be reductionistic to reduce spoken language to sound, but I've never heard of such a thing. Language can be encoded all sorts of ways, some of which don't involve sound at all. It looks to me like you are conflating the pragmatic idea that there is always a discrepancy between concepts and reality with a complaint about reductionism. But the pragmatists do not see this as the result of a philosophical error. It's just about the nature of conceptual reality and immediately experienced reality. This is not a methodological stance, as reductionism is. Nice try. [Krimel] OK you are absolutely RIGHT not all languages involve sound. But they do involve reducing experience into signs. Reduction 4.0 - Dave doesn't know what to say, so he invokes the incantation of pragmatism. ------------------------------------------ Krimel said: I don't see a problem with any of this and if you do, you have never said what it is. You just do a lot of name calling and labeling. dmb says: I know you don't see a problem. [Krimel] Apparently you don't either... Pssssttt, you the reader of this... yeah you... want odds on whether he will have the good sense to STFU? [dmb] That's why your responses have been so irrelevant. The funny thing is, I tell you what the problem is just about every time, including the post you're responding to. It's right at the top of this post. [Krimel] You are now going to lecture me on irrelevant responses? OK, you the reader... yeah you... just PayPal me a request. You'll get your money... [dmb] My complaint is about your "reducing experience to physiological processes". What else would I call that? What else would I label that? [Krimel] I would call it what I have called it: looking at what goes on inside the body as experience takes place. Get a clue to the processes involved and hoping they shed light on why we do the things we do. Perhaps applying such findings, not only to the relief of pathology, but for an expansion and enlargement of our capabilities, at very least to illuminate our understanding of the human mind. I think that's what James had in mind, and Piaget and your Zen Buddy Austin and the Dalai Lama. But I guess you would reduce it to a label to make it sounds icky and you think others will find it icky too. But FYI I never said the experience can be reduced to physiology. I said that experience can not take place in the absence of physiology. I said in fact that the self is a Mind/Body. [dmb] Calling you a reductionist is not "name calling". That term has had meaning in genuine philosophical debates for ages and there's nothing unfair about using it. Now, if I were to call you a reductionist dick head or a reductionist testicle face, that would be name calling. Calling you square, obviously, is an allusion to all the comments in ZAMM about squares and so I find that to be a legitimate term here too. These things convey meaning, not just attitude. [Krimel] Actually Dave your use of "reductionist" was and is just name calling. That's all it was. No where in what you have written above or in the prelude to this, have you specified exactly what is the problem. I suspect that other than the icky feeling, you really don't know and that labeling it is the best you can do. I will grant you that it is better than gav who seems reduced to a spasm of profanity. Krimel said: ...I showed with many, many quotes in the post I quoted here that you are misusing and abusing James shamelessly. Your response then and now was to run and hide and change the subject. dmb says: Well, I don't know what to tell you there. The people who graded my papers on James would definitely disagree with you on this. [Krimel] An argument from authority is an upgrade from profanity but here the best you can do is claim that your teachers say you are smart, so you must be. Well they aren't here, Dave and since this is the exact answer you gave last time; I am guessing they wouldn't be of much help to you. [dmb] It's pretty obvious to me that Pirsig would disagree with you there too. As I see it, you're reading James as if he were a behaviorist, a reductionist like your self. But I'm also not interested in going down that road again, where we debate the meaning of James's quotes, because I'm not disputing James's psychology. I'm not even talking about James's psychology. [Krimel] So you are going to just leave those issues unaddressed, how utterly precedented. Just a reminder: You didn't answer them last time either. [dmb] I'm just trying to get you to see what reductionism is and why it would be a problem, which you don't. [Krimel] All this stammering and sputtering but I haven't even heard you explain any kind of reductionism that is bad or why someone would think it is bad. Try Dennett's greedy reductionism. Everybody thinks its bad even Dennett. Come on, try it, its the only thing you have been trying to label me with anyway. [dmb] On top of all that, you're using James the psychologist to dispute James the philosopher, as if these two were incompatible or mutually exclusive. His psychology and his radical empiricism fit quite nicely together, unless they're put in the hands of a reductionist or a thoroughly unphilosophical psychologist or a thoroughly unpsychological philosopher. I mean, James said some amazing and fascinating things about the body and its role in psychology but you more or less reduce psychology to biology or reduce empiricism to physiology. In short, its just way too complicated at this point. I suspect that's why you'd like to go there. You feel safer there and it serves as a smoke screen. [Krimel] Ok I don't think James the psychologist is in dispute with James the philosopher so I didn't say that. What I said, with apologies to your teacher who seem altogether too kind, is YOU don't know jack shit about either one. [dmb] As if we're not talking about the MOQ and it's use of radical empiricism. Geez, what a weasel. [Krimel] Weasel? Seriously man, are you trying to be funny? Try a little Joni Mitchell she might be able to help you after all it's only a phase, these dark café days: The last time I saw Richard was Detroit in 68, And he told me all romantics meet the same fate someday Cynical and drunk and boring someone in some dark cafe You laugh, he said you think you're immune, go look at your eyes They're full of moon You like roses and kisses and pretty men to tell you All those pretty lies, pretty lies When you gonna realize they're only pretty lies Only pretty lies, just pretty lies He put a quarter in the Wurlitzer, and he pushed Three buttons and the thing began to whirr And a bar maid came by in fishnet stockings and a bow tie And she said drink up now its getting' on time to close. Richard, you haven't really changed, I said It's just that now you're romanticizing some pain that's in your head You got tombs in your eyes, but the songs You punched are dreaming Listen, they sing of love so sweet, love so sweet When you gonna get yourself back on your feet? Oh and love can be so sweet, love so sweet Richard got married to a figure skater And he bought her a dishwasher and a coffee percolator And he drinks at home now most nights with the TV on And all the house lights left up bright I'm gonna blow this damn candle out I don't want nobody comin' over to my table I got nothing to talk to anybody about All good dreamers pass this way some day Hiding behind bottles in dark cafes Dark cafes Only a dark cocoon before I get my gorgeous wings And fly away Only a phase, these dark cafe days Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
