Krimel replied: My dictionary actually has a picture of you alongside an entry reading: reductionism |riˈdək sh əˌnizəm|noun a term Dave uses when he wants a plausible sounding excuse for dismissing someone's argument in the absence of actually having a valid counter argument. ..The way you toss out this term is like a chemist dismissing all of physics because it attempts to break chemical processes into more fundamental inorganic relationships. Or a biologist dismissing chemistry because it breaks life down into simpler more fundamental phenomena...
dmb says: No, Krimel. The explanation of reductionism is a valid counter argument. Blah blah, blah... [Krimel] It's not like I haven't addressed this a dozen times before and didn't address it in my previous post. I am not really interested in pursuing it now. But here are a couple of answers that I have mentioned several times of over the past five years. #1 -Pictures in the Gallery- As Pirsig points out philosophical, artistic, scientific, mythic, logical... explanations are pictures in the gallery you can like one without discarding the others. Or select one over another on different days of the week to suit your mood. You can prefer one style of art over another without avoiding a whole section of the museum because you don't like modern art. I preferred detailed well thought out arguments that are include as much data and provide as much "resolution" as possible. But that doesn't mean I can't appreciate understand and enjoy finger painting. You on the other hand use your preference for finger painting as an excuse to stay out of the surrealist gallery. #2 -Art Technique and the Plucking of Strings- You are correct that the physics and math of sound does not explain music. But a great deal of music does use math and physics in the creation of sound, tempo and melody. The kind of music you can make is in some ways determine by the kinds of instruments you can make and how you choose to tune them. To use your metaphor if you focus on the vibration of strings you will not be making trumpet sounds or oboe music. The kinds of painting you can make are limited by the palette available to you, the brushes you choose, whether you rub the color on with a knife or squeeze it out from a tube. #3 -Not This, Not That All perception is illusion. However we chose to describe something, will left something else out, some other possibility unexplored. Real problems occur when you mistake your illusions for reality itself. Bo does this. I think you do it. You think I do it. I know I try to avoid it by cultivating Gestalt shifts. I invite you to do it but you always insist on going through this exercise first. #4 -Top down versus Bottom up- As James says our conceptions arise from and are held in check by our perceptions. While our concepts influence our perception as in the case of young Da Vinci and old Da Vinci James would say perception must be held primary in the final analysis. I see this as a kind of feedback loop where the use of perception and conception is a two way street. Sometimes one works better than others and their inaction shapes our understand. But in the end while concepts are very useful but we occasionally need a reality check. #5 -Road Trips- No one has suggested that road trips can be described in terms of gas mileage. But one can certainly predict that road trips are likely to be one way if gas mileage is not considered. #6 -Reduction <--> Emergence While we can look downward to see what is at the root of say culture, biology, chemistry all that will tell us is something about the probability of what can emerge at higher levels. If you look at Drake's equation and take it seriously for a second, it could be applied to the conditions here on Earth say 5 billion years ago. That would allow you to predict that life was likely to emerge here but it would not allow you to predict that this kind of life would emerge. There are too many variables and too much time involved to allow that kind of specificity. But know what has emerged here does allow you to look backwards and downwards to see what conditions had to be in place for something like this to emerge. That after all is how Drake arrived at his equation. You can even question Drakes equation, tinker with it, add or subtract variables but something about "what is" limits what we can say about the conditions necessary for it to emerge. Just as whatever those conditions were limits what is possible now. Reduction and emergence at two sides of the same coin and you can't have one without the other. #7 -On Blind Men and Elephants If you just touch the tail the elephant is like a rope... The more places you touch the better your concept of elephant becomes. If you keep your hands in your pocket you can say whatever you want. #8 - If your only tool is a hammer... Why would you even want a toolbox with one tool. What happens if you think all of the tools in your tool box are "ugly"? #9 -Barbeque Art- I always see this as a revisiting of the classic/romantic spilt in ZMM. Guess who's who in this little melodrama. I try to remind you that it is not at all difficult for one of a classic inclination to see assembling a grill as a creative act or to appreciate art and music from a romantic point of view. But as Pirsig suggests and you so frequently demonstrate it doesn't seem to work so well the other way around. #11 -The Real Problem: Part 1 See above. You think neuroscience is ugly and tedious and will suck the life from your romantic dreams and so you scream "reductionism" to keep from engaging the boogyman. #12 - The Real Problem: Part 2 While reductionism cannot provide a full explanation of anything, it can set limits on what kinds of explanations are feasible. That is pretty much what Wilson says. He doesn't say that genetics can provide a full account of culture but he does say biology places limits on the forms cultures can take. If you take seriously the biological processes involved in perception rather that treating the term as an abstraction much of your world view gets shredded. I am really not at all interested in pursuing this diversion any further. I am sure there is lots wrong with the above, mostly because it is repetitious and I found it a boring exercise. But in the end not only does what I have said in my definition above still stand; all you have done is illustrate my point. I can't make you take that difficult step outside your comfort zone. If you don't like hip-hop, you can tune out the hip-hop stations. If you don't like a particular form of art you can avoid that section of the museum. But I would still argue that avoiding whole sections of the radio spectrum or galleries in the art museum will severely limit the validity of what you have to say about art or music. 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/md/archives.html
