Hi Ian looking forward to it
David M ----- Original Message ----- From: "ian glendinning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 8:16 PM Subject: Re: [MD] What are the Intellectual and Social levels? > David (M), > > Interesting quote from Barrow ... I've just been reading > "Schroedinger's Kittens" by John Gribben - ten years old now, but an > update on state of the art physics. > > He suggests, from the "all is metaphor anyway" angle, that all new > mathematics turns up in physics as scientists look for new metaphors > to explain phenomena - ie it's not fundamental that the maths is > there, in the physics, just natural that physicists will use it to > "invent" models and explanations. (Finding the same line, currently > reading Bergsson, that knowledge evolves through the creative process, > synthesising new things with anything that comes to hand - preceeds > any objective empiricism in science. Have a long essay on Maxwell's > scientific neurosis almost ready to go.) > > Ian > > On 7/4/07, David M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi Marsha/Ian/David >> >> >> And this gives us a greater reality, as JD Barrow says: >> >> "This makes mathematics something rather larger than the physical world >> of [sense] experience, for not everything that can exist mathematically >> appears to exist in physical reality" >> >> ...at least until we decide to bring these new discoveries into physical >> reality ....such is the artificial.... >> >> David M >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "MarshaV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <[email protected]> >> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 8:48 AM >> Subject: Re: [MD] What are the Intellectual and Social levels? >> >> >> > At 01:31 AM 7/3/2007, you wrote: >> > >> >>On 30/06/2007, at 6:55 PM, MarshaV wrote: >> >> >> >> > At 04:11 AM 6/30/2007, you wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On 29/06/2007, at 7:31 PM, MarshaV wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Greetings, >> >> >>> >> >> >>> This seems an example of the difference between 'knowing by >> >> >>> experience' and 'knowing by abstract manipulation'. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Before Archemedes discovered the mathematical principles of >> >> >>> displacement, people knew through experience which boats could >> >> >>> float, >> >> >>> which couldn't and which floated better. After the Archemedes >> >> >>> mathematical principles were understood, boats could be better >> >> >>> designed for future purposes with more precise accuracy. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> What do you think? Can this represent the Social Level vs the >> >> >>> Intellectual Level? >> >> >>> >> >> >>> I don't let go very well. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Marsha >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Marsha also said: >> >> >> >> >> >>>> Greetings, >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Okay how about if I change the language, or am I totally off >> >> >>>> track? >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Try this: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> An example of Social Level SPoVs might be like those connected >> >> >>>> with >> >> >>>> ancient boat building. Boats were built dependent on the shared >> >> >>>> and >> >> >>>> repetitive experience of having observed which boats could float, >> >> >>>> which couldn't, and which floated better. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> After Archemedes discovered the principles of displacement, >> >> >>>> mathematical calculations could be used to design and build a >> >> >>>> better >> >> >>>> boat for more precise purposes. These might be an example of >> >> >>>> Intellectual Level SPoVs. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> And finally Marsha wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Thank you for responding. It seemed wise to skip the 'what is >> >> >> known >> >> >> in mind' and 'what is knowledge' approach. This example seemed to >> >> >> differentiate even sophisticated patterns based on repetitive >> >> >> experience as the social level, and patterns based on mathematical >> >> >> abstraction as the intellectual level. Archemedes discovery of the >> >> >> principle of displacement had far reaching applications other than >> >> >> ship building and demonstrates the genius behind intellect too. It >> >> >> puts knowing how to bake a pie in the social level, pi in the >> >> >> intellectual level, and all seems right with the world. But I'll >> >> >> wait to see if there is a challenge. >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Marsha, >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks for taking the time to explain your ideas. Not letting go >> >> >> of >> >> >> your ideas unless a better idea comes along is a good quality to >> >> >> have. >> >> >> >> >> >> My question is; don't dogs and cats know things from experience? >> >> >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> >> >> >> David. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Hi David, >> >> > >> >> > Hahahahah. Just when I think I've graduated from kindergarten, >> >> > another question. Knowing is magic (experience), so my answer is >> >> > yes. >> >> > >> >> > Marsha >> >> >> >>Hi Marsha and SA, >> >> >> >>I'm having difficulties understanding RMP's letter to Paul now thanks >> >>to Marsha's pointing out flaws in my thinking. I think our >> >>difference are over what we would classify as intellectual or social. >> >>RMP seems to take different standpoints on this in the same letter >> >>and contradicts himself in the process. Let me point out my reasoning: >> >> >> >>At some stages in the letter he seems to want the intellectual level >> >>to be applied after the Greeks. Here's some quotes where he argues >> >>for this. >> >> >> >>RMP writes: >> >> >> >>"Thus, though it may be assumed that the Egyptians who preceded the >> >>Greeks had intellect, it can be doubted that theirs was an >> >>intellectual culture." >> >> >> >>"Solon, the Athenian lawgiver, could be the pivotal point. Maybe >> >>Solomon. Maybe the early Greek philosophers. Who knows? But if one >> >>studies the early books of the Bible or if one studies the sayings of >> >>primitive tribes today, the intellectual level is conspicuously >> >>absent. The world is ruled by Gods who follow social and biological >> >>patterns and nothing else." >> >> >> >>"And since everything is thus social, why even have the word? I think >> >>the same happens to the term, "intellectual," when one extends it >> >>much before the Ancient Greeks.* If one extends the term intellectual >> >>to include primitive cultures just because they are thinking about >> >>things, why stop there? How about chimpanzees? Don't they think? How >> >>about earthworms? Don't they make conscious decisions? How about >> >>bacteria responding to light and darkness? How about chemicals >> >>responding to light and darkness? Our intellectual level is >> >>broadening to a point where it is losing all its meaning. " >> >> >> >>However, at other stages he wants the intellectual level to be >> >>related directly to 'abstract thought' whose rules are mathematics, >> >>logic and grammar. >> >> >> >>"You have to cut it off somewhere, and it seems to me the greatest >> >>meaning can be given to the intellectual level if it is confined to >> >>the skilled manipulation of abstract symbols that have no >> >>corresponding particular experience and which behave according to >> >>rules of their own." >> >> >> >>""Intellect" can then be defined very loosely as the level of >> >>independently manipulable signs. Grammar, logic and mathematics can >> >>be described as the rules of this sign manipulation." >> >> >> >>The point seems lost on RMP that the Egyptians as far as I know used >> >>grammar and mathematics and they were before the Greeks. He makes the >> >>distinction also between intellect and intellectual. However he >> >>contradicts himself again by defining them as the same thing as shown >> >>in the two quotes above! >> >> >> >>IMHO, until a better idea comes along, intellect should be kept as >> >>what he has defined both intellect and intellectual above and that >> >>upon using the rules of intellect 'mathematics, grammar and logic' >> >>one is being intellectual. >> >> >> >>Therefore one can have a social 'thought', but unless it is >> >>manipulated in some way then it is only social. Once this 'thought' >> >>is manipulated using the rules of grammar, logic or mathematics then >> >>one is being intellectual. >> >> >> >>What do you think? >> >> >> >>Cheers, >> >> >> >>David. >> > >> > >> > Hi David, >> > >> > "...Yet despite the Egyptians 'brilliant geometric work, zero was >> > nowhere to be found within Egypt. >> > >> > This was, in part because the Egyptians were of a practical >> > bent. They never progressed beyond measuring volumes and counting >> > days and hours. Mathematics wasn't used for anything impractical, >> > except their system of astrology. As a result, their best >> > mathematicians were unable to use the principles of geometry for >> > anything unrelated to real world problems--they did not take their >> > system of mathematics and turn it into an abstract system of >> > logic. They were also not inclined to put math into their >> > philosophy. The Greeks were different; they embraced the abstract >> > and the philosophical, and brought mathematics to its highest point >> > in ancient times..." >> > (Seife, 'ZERO,: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea, Chapter >> > 1) >> > >> > This might add to the explanation of why RMP thought the Greeks had >> > intellect. Seife goes on to suggest that Archemedes was the first to >> > glimpse infinity and "had to invent a whole new method of denoting >> > really huge numbers." >> > >> > I agree with Ian that your last paragraph is significant. It might >> > be that once a 'thought' with practical purposes is abstracted, it >> > uses or invents grammar, logic or mathematics to create something new >> > that elevates our understanding of the world. >> > >> > Thank you for writing a very thoughtful post. >> > >> > Marsha >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > 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/ >> > >> >> 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/ >> > 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/ > 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/
