[Arisbe] Re: Inquiry Into Inquiry

[Jon Awbrey]

¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤

Howard Patee wrote (HP):

HP: I think Mishtu is again correct in his suggestion that Jon's and my premises
    are different with respect to empiricism.  Even though our differences may be
    irremediable, it may be interesting if we at least try to state our metaphysics
    as clearly as possible.

HP: I have an evolutionary/empirical epistemology, believing (until
    evolution or experience shows otherwise) that all knowledge arises
    either from evolution or experience.  By evolution I mean search and
    selection, but not necessarily blind (Darwinian) search.  I believe
    search heuristics can evolve (a la Conrad, Rossler, Dawkins, et al.).
    Learning (inquiry) must also use blind search as a last resort, but it
    also depends on much cleverer heuristics.  (I use "heuristics" because
    I know of no rigid or universal rules of inquiry).

HP: Experience also teaches us to be skeptical of personal experience and to seek consensus.
    Physics has incorporated this skepticism into a fundamental principle that all candidate
    laws (hypothesis) must satisfy, namely, the principle of invariance or symmetry with
    respect to all conceivable observers (even those travelling on photons).  Physics
    is an extreme case, and it is of limited value for models of cells and brains,
    for example. 

HP: Evolution, life, and learning all depend on languages, the similar and different
    natures of which are the subject of much of our OCA discussions.  The power of
    genetic language is that it allows the construction of molecules that never
    existed before, and consequently also the construction of novel organisms.
    The power of natural language is that it allows construction of ideas
    that never existed before, and consequently also the construction of
    fiction.  That is, stories that do not correspond to any real
    physical events.

HP: Mathematics and logic have evolved (culturally) from natural language and they both have
    inherited the power to construct fictional forms, that is, novel symbolic structures that
    do not correspond to any real physical structures.  It is in this sense that the empiricist
    is skeptical of (i.e., does not trust) any linguistic, mathematical, and logical constructions,
    no matter how precise, unambiguous, elegantly, or "reasonably" constructed.

HP: The only dependable test I know for distinguishing fiction from reality
    boils down to a generalized Hertzian test.  In fact, that is what I would
    define as an empirical test for any linguistic, mathematical or logical form
    or construction.  Mere pattern recognition, perception, detection, or observation
    is not enough.

HP: That's as brief and blunt as I can be.
    I probably will have to make some
    sharpening amendments.

Golly, I find nothing really major to dispute here --
I suppose that it depends what is meant by "major",
but mostly I have been working at a different level
of detail for some time now.  I lament the chance
that this discussion might take a non-constructive
and even anti-intellectual turn, as it is mostly
the task of constructing software tools for the
support and extension of our humane intellects
that is my main aim.  I suppose that we could
pick on the small stuff if anybody wants,
but I am really more interested in going
forward with what I have learned over
the past 30 plus 3 billion years
via experience and evolution,
respectfully,

Jon Awbrey

¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤