Glen, >>Or are you simply saying that a metaphysical/supernatural hypothesis
like your "creation is beyond language" is a belief
that cannot be debated? One either accepts it or one doesn't and no argument is
powerful enough to change one's position?<< Yes, I
meant something like this, but I prefer to use another, more appropriate,
terminology (it seems that Chaitin mean the same):
*reality as it is* ("outside" of our perception). I think that perceived image
of reality that we claim as "our reality" is not
complete and not very accurate as any interpretation. And our evolution (as our
consciousness grows from our current level toward
our Higher Selves) is also about extension and clarification of this perception
of reality. Or we can say: our "reality" is
extending (it's an isomorphic expression). It seems that theologians, mystics,
philosophers were first to recognize / experience
bigger reality behind our "regular" perception of it, and now we need to extend
our languages (references) and models to "work" with
the same things. I got from Chaitin's lesson that he tries mathematically to
articulate something like that... without using a word
"divine" :-) P.S. Sometime we recognized that our references point to different
perceptions, images of reality, and this is what I
meant as an axiomatic level. It's about *to see*, not *proof* (read "convince")
because it's prior any proof, even any
language. --Mikhail
----- Original Message -----
From: glen e. p. ropella
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Mathematics and Music
Mikhail Gorelkin wrote:
> >>Glen<<
> >>Going back to the original point, I maintain that both the
> act of creation and the act of making occur within what I call
> sensory-motor interactions, not somehow "beyond" or behind them.<<
> No, *nobody* can convince you. He/she can show you but you're the one
> that has.. to see / experience this difference :-) (this is an
> axiomatic level) --Mikhail
It's not clear to me what you're saying, here. Are you simply saying
that I'm stubborn? [grin] Yes, that's true ... and I'm proud of it. As
a good friend once told me: "If your mind is too closed, nothing can
get in. But if your mind is too open, everything falls out."
Or are you simply saying that a metaphysical/supernatural hypothesis
like your "creation is beyond language" is a belief that cannot be
debated? One either accepts it or one doesn't and no argument is
powerful enough to change one's position?
In that sense, I guess we agree, because I believe the claim: "creation
is beyond language" to be a religious claim. I don't believe the claim.
But, just because it's religious on its face doesn't mean we can't shave
down the concept of "creation" (like you did by distinguishing "making"
from "creation") and construct some type of scientific (testable) claim.
For example, we might propose that: Non-linguistic animals can
spontaneously begin using novel food gathering methods. "Novel" meaning
"never before observed in this species". The we can leave it up to the
metaphysicians as to whether or not "novelty" and "creation" are related.
--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
============================================================
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
