User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 68

  1. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UniqueMixture View Post
    I just mean, you can quantitatively analyze real world processes that are conglomerations of different processes. To analyze them individually breaks them down and then results in useless data because it cannot be applied to the whole because the # of degrees of freedom that the interaction takes place upon is different so the emergent pattern is different (I know you know). So, for example in the analytical measurement of emotional state for you can look at large indicators of affect such as facial muscle movement, galvanic skin response, neurotransmitter levels, etc but you have to view each of those as existing within a range of expression, so two people who report the same emotional state might not only be achieving it by means of different formulations of their constituent interactions, but two people with "identical" interactions may be having subjectively different states because there are environmental variations that we cannot mitigate. No matter what model you will build there will be a limit to your capacity to model behavior as a reflection of reality. If you built the perfect model it would be reality and at that scale it everything would change because now you have a tandem process that interacts with that which it is trying to analyze so information will drift between the two systems. So, what I am trying to get at is that "absolute truth" is a notion that is in the realm of "words" to use your own language but, we have no physical system which is capable of storing data in that fashion or that is able to interact cohesively as a whole in reality.
    I agree with everything you stated here (in only a technical sense for the last sentence), and have for a long time. My avatar (which I've had since a few days since I joined this site) is a basic symbol of emergence. I still don't know what it is that you believe I am reducing, or being reductionist about.

    The luxury of standing apart and throwing stones or halting progress, waiting for something better, has long passed. We see the flaws in the system but continue to engage because that is what we have in front of us. Democracy is the worst form of government except all the rest. Empercism, parsimony, and peer-review is a very imperfect system for understanding reality, but it still seems the best tool set so far.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  2. #32
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    Certainly, I don't think it constitutes all of post-modernism. However, I have observed that post-modernism (in present times) is a luxury of those who don't need to work for food and shelter.
    Postmodernism is an Athenian's dream come true. Care to clarify? Thought food is great.

  3. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ginkgo View Post
    Postmodernism is an Athenian's dream come true. Care to clarify? Thought food is great.
    Postmodernism is great for tearing down, but not as good for building up, and certainly no good for rebuilding together. It is now the province of imps and hipster wannabes. These ideas are quite old, and have been tried for ages. They met with successes, and may meet with more.

    But postmodernism is purporting itself as a Grand Narrative itself now--The Grand Narrative of No Narrative. I suppose, there are remnants where individuals are free, and create in honest, authentic ways, unencumbered by particulars other than their own choosing. If this is a legacy of postmodernism, I grant it that.

    If the vitriol of others in this thread is not evidence enough, you can check plenty of other corners of modern culture. People are now sick of postmodernism. It is now trite and formulaic to state the things it espoused. The people enamored by it, spouting crap about "paradigm shifts" and "revolution", are largely seen as cranks and boasters.

    Nobody actually shifting a paradigm needs to declare she is doing so. A revolutionary idea is self-evident...you should not have to call it as such.

    Stating a belief that you can, by simple mechanical application of deconstruction, choosing an assumption to break, or combing ideas "that have never been combined before", create a "paradigm shift", seems laughably naive. Not to say that these things don't have value. Just don't go selling them as magic elixirs.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  4. #34
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    Postmodernism is great for tearing down, but not as good for building up, and certainly no good for rebuilding together. It is now the province of imps and hipster wannabes. These ideas are quite old, and have been tried for ages. They met with successes, and may meet with more.

    But postmodernism is purporting itself as a Grand Narrative itself now--The Grand Narrative of No Narrative. I suppose, there are remnants where individuals are free, and create in honest, authentic ways, unencumbered by particulars other than their own choosing. If this is a legacy of postmodernism, I grant it that.

    If the vitriol of others in this thread is not evidence enough, you can check plenty of other corners of modern culture. People are now sick of postmodernism. It is now trite and formulaic to state the things it espoused. The people enamored by it, spouting crap about "paradigm shifts" and "revolution", are largely seen as cranks and boasters.

    Nobody actually shifting a paradigm needs to declare she is doing so. A revolutionary idea is self-evident...you should not have to call it as such.

    Stating a belief that you can, by simple mechanical application of deconstruction, choosing an assumption to break, or combing ideas "that have never been combined before", create a "paradigm shift", seems laughably naive. Not to say that these things don't have value. Just don't go selling them as magic elixirs.
    I'm wondering if postmodern these symptoms simply resonate from a culture that isn't postmodern as a backlash.

  5. #35
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    LOL "paradigm shift" has, I think, become a business-ism. Everyone is having a paradigm shift these days.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  6. #36
    Senior Member UniqueMixture's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    estj
    Enneagram
    378 sx/so
    Socionics
    esfp
    Posts
    3,038

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    I agree with everything you stated here (in only a technical sense for the last sentence), and have for a long time. My avatar (which I've had since a few days since I joined this site) is a basic symbol of emergence. I still don't know what it is that you believe I am reducing, or being reductionist about.

    The luxury of standing apart and throwing stones or halting progress, waiting for something better, has long passed. We see the flaws in the system but continue to engage because that is what we have in front of us. Democracy is the worst form of government except all the rest. Empercism, parsimony, and peer-review is a very imperfect system for understanding reality, but it still seems the best tool set so far.
    Sorry, I meant reductionist in that, we can only create respective relationships with respect to incidence of physical phenomena by correlating physical behavior to changes in variables. So not necessarily you, but inherent to the process of quantitative analysis is involved formation of bounds in the process of examination. So I propose that examination involve much larger more complex structures that have more abstract bounds perhaps by modeling their behavior computationally so as not to disrupt the subprocess which we may wish to observe, however it can be more difficult to differentiate the more complex the interaction. In other words, it involves the shift in thought from viewing reality as composed of objects having discrete attributes, or as waves overlapping, or as excitations of fields to a more abstract model where the properties of each can be seen as non-stable and able to be interpolated against one another (from physics perspective).
    For all that we have done, as a civilization, as individuals, the universe is not stable, and nor is any single thing within it. Stars consume themselves, the universe itself rushes apart, and we ourselves are composed of matter in constant flux. Colonies of cells in temporary alliance, replicating and decaying and housed within, an incandescent cloud of electrical impulses. This is reality, this is self knowledge, and the perception of it will, of course, make you dizzy.

  7. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ginkgo View Post
    I'm wondering if postmodern these symptoms simply resonate from a culture that isn't postmodern as a backlash.
    Doesn't wanting a "postmodern culture", seem rather Grand Narrative-ish to you? A postmodernist has trouble in his endeavors of convincing people because such endeavors are, in itself, representative of the thing he is criticizing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    LOL "paradigm shift" has, I think, become a business-ism. Everyone is having a paradigm shift these days.
    Yeah, a formulaic means to shift paradigms seem well... lets just leave it at formulaic.

    Quote Originally Posted by UniqueMixture View Post
    Sorry, I meant reductionist in that, we can only create respective relationships with respect to incidence of physical phenomena by correlating physical behavior to changes in variables. So not necessarily you, but inherent to the process of quantitative analysis is involved formation of bounds in the process of examination.
    It is inherent to your conception of quantitative analysis perhaps, but not mine.

    Beyond that, I am not advocating the use of quantitative analysis alone, but adding that option to our set of tools. How is adding an option going to bound the options available to us regarding understanding?

    Quote Originally Posted by UniqueMixture View Post
    So I propose that examination involve much larger more complex structures that have more abstract bounds perhaps by modeling their behavior computationally so as not to disrupt the subprocess which we may wish to observe, however it can be more difficult to differentiate the more complex the interaction.
    How is getting rid of quantitative analysis, and confining ourselves to digital computation less reductionist that allowing for quantitative analysis as well. You act as if people don't use computers to study things already. There is nothing new here.

    Quote Originally Posted by UniqueMixture View Post
    In other words, it involves the shift in thought from viewing reality as composed of objects having discrete attributes, or as waves overlapping, or as excitations of fields to a more abstract model where the properties of each can be seen as non-stable and able to be interpolated against one another (from physics perspective).
    Again, you act as if people haven't been doing this since the 60s. Again, I still don't see why this should preclude quantitative analysis.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  8. #38
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    Doesn't wanting a "postmodern culture", seem rather Grand Narrative-ish to you? A postmodernist has trouble in his endeavors of convincing people because such endeavors are, in itself, representative of the thing he is criticizing.

    It does. I don't know how that follows from what I stated. I suppose I didn't phrase it adequately.

    I'm wondering if we are in post-postmodernism. if we are not, the reason why it is even a matter of debate is because we experience some symptoms of postmodernity. These symptoms may exist because of the stress post-postmodernism has pushed on society. While postmodernism moves us, and while postmodernism could reasonably regarded as a grand narrative (though, not all that grant), it could ever be a voice of authority because it is essentially void of forthcoming habit or structure.

    I've said it before on this forum and I'll say it again - Postmodernism is typically pushed by a subgroup of liberals, yet, because of what you were describing, postmodernity is, in effect, conservative and regressive. That is to say that, since an extreme postmodernist can't put forth any genuine, logical arguments, no solutions can be spoken of. Ideals crumble around deconstructed reason. If the postmodernist is to really think about this dilemma as an actual problem, then he/she must realize that they are at square one like everyone else is in terms of how they correspond with the world they conceptualize.

    It makes sense that the unemployed (such as myself) would ease into postmodern attitudes for this very reason, seeing as employment demands constructive cooperation, whether it be from an employer or an employee.

  9. #39
    Senior Member UniqueMixture's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    estj
    Enneagram
    378 sx/so
    Socionics
    esfp
    Posts
    3,038

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    It is inherent to your conception of quantitative analysis perhaps, but not mine
    How do you see it differently?

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    Beyond that, I am not advocating the use of quantitative analysis alone, but adding that option to our set of tools. How is adding an option going to bound the options available to us regarding understanding?
    Oh, that is not what I am arguing. I am merely advocating that quantitative analysis be interpreted not as literally.

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    How is getting rid of quantitative analysis, and confining ourselves to digital computation less reductionist that allowing for quantitative analysis as well. You act as if people don't use computers to study things already. There is nothing new here.
    Yes, I agree. I am merely warning against not seeing the forest for the trees. As magic poriferan noted earlier you can represent anything using math, however as you noted the degree to which this is an exercise in symbolic logic and where it stops correlating with reality is often long before that point. However, it is important to remember that as of right now, we know we are wrong because the best models we have of reality explicitly do not correlate with observation at certain points. So, it should be obvious that we need new methodology of formal representation in order to better represent reality. To me, that method is obvious, recreation of the system we are observing physically (where possible). This is obviously difficult in physics with "larger questions" because we do not have the energy capacity to recreate the formal system. However, we can possibly begin to recreate complex biological systems with trillions of components computationally by modelling them (such as weather systems, mega ant colonies, and the human brain). Whenever we have a limit that we are pushing against theoretically, it is just an opportunity to practice applied science in order to find contradictions in our models so we can eliminate false leads.

    Again, you act as if people haven't been doing this since the 60s. Again, I still don't see why this should preclude quantitative analysis.
    I think they have been doing it in theory in labs and so forth, but I do not think for most they interact with the world in a moral, aesthetic, or tactile way that is in concert with their theoretical understanding. I think this acts as a block to integration of this experience as reality.
    For all that we have done, as a civilization, as individuals, the universe is not stable, and nor is any single thing within it. Stars consume themselves, the universe itself rushes apart, and we ourselves are composed of matter in constant flux. Colonies of cells in temporary alliance, replicating and decaying and housed within, an incandescent cloud of electrical impulses. This is reality, this is self knowledge, and the perception of it will, of course, make you dizzy.

  10. #40
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Hipsters still infest society, so no. Postmodernism isn't dead.

Similar Threads

  1. The end of innovation?
    By ygolo in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 04-15-2011, 04:39 AM
  2. The end of freedom of speech?
    By Sahara in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 12-29-2009, 03:45 PM
  3. Forget Big Brother: Facebook, Corporations, and the End of Free Speech
    By speculative in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 11-23-2009, 11:40 AM
  4. why is taking semester off the end of the world?
    By prplchknz in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 11-06-2009, 01:53 PM
  5. Man on the Moon: The End of Day (New Kid Cudi Album)
    By metaphours in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-02-2009, 01:59 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO