Ryan Chitwood's Senior Thesis Ideas & Experiments.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
The foundation of General Semantics
I just found this paper by Alfred Korzybski (founder of General Semantics) titled: "The Role of Language in the Perceptual Processes."
"When the premises of this new approach had been formulated, I found unexpectedly that they turned out to be a denial of the old "laws of thought" and the foundation for a non-Aristotelian system, the modus operandi of which I have named "General Semantics." The premises are very simple and may be stated by means of an analogy:
1. A map is not the territory. (Words are not the things they represent.)
2. A map covers not all the territory. (Words cannot cover all they represent.)
3. A map is self-reflexive. (In language we can speak about language.) "
"When the premises of this new approach had been formulated, I found unexpectedly that they turned out to be a denial of the old "laws of thought" and the foundation for a non-Aristotelian system, the modus operandi of which I have named "General Semantics." The premises are very simple and may be stated by means of an analogy:
1. A map is not the territory. (Words are not the things they represent.)
2. A map covers not all the territory. (Words cannot cover all they represent.)
3. A map is self-reflexive. (In language we can speak about language.) "
Monday, January 3, 2011
Why We are All Map Makers - a bit of (almost) free writing
What does this whole map/territory thing mean? This won't be short.
A map, in this use of the word, means (to me, of course) a system of organization for navigating a space. Here, "space" can mean many things as well. A familar one is an aerial view (the system) of a city or state (the space). All sorts of things can be thought of as maps. Music genres work as labels which organize music*, so it can be communicated about (or navigated). A history book about the first Moon landing is a map. A diagram of a hydrogen atom is a map. An equally valid word is model. It is my belief, that most of what the human mind does, is map-making. Maps, or models, are limited- they can never contain all of the information or they would cease to be maps. So, this means that all maps are an interpretation of the territory. Different map-makers will make different maps for different purposes. A map of downtown maybe lists all of the streets, all of the restaurants, or all of the five-star restaurants, or perhaps only the donut shops. Once more, it could chart the elevation of the ground, the inner workings of the sewer system, the population, the temperature, the list goes on and on and on and on. Maps or models seem to be everything we have in a sense. Even our past would appear to be a subjective interpretation of our memory.
What's more, maps are to be read. This complicates things even further as the reader's subjective ideas/biases/conclusions/beliefs, are at work when interpreting the map, defining and organizing that map into his or her own model of the universe. How often have you and a friend been recounting a past event, when one of you says something like, "that's not how it happened, it was like this"?
The point of this is really that labels are dangerous. If we become too sure of our maps, we can justify doing foolish things. I want to create a dialogue which aids in putting our models into context in order to establish a further clarity.
That was shorter than I expected.
*The word "music," itself, being a model which serves to simplify a complex idea.
A map, in this use of the word, means (to me, of course) a system of organization for navigating a space. Here, "space" can mean many things as well. A familar one is an aerial view (the system) of a city or state (the space). All sorts of things can be thought of as maps. Music genres work as labels which organize music*, so it can be communicated about (or navigated). A history book about the first Moon landing is a map. A diagram of a hydrogen atom is a map. An equally valid word is model. It is my belief, that most of what the human mind does, is map-making. Maps, or models, are limited- they can never contain all of the information or they would cease to be maps. So, this means that all maps are an interpretation of the territory. Different map-makers will make different maps for different purposes. A map of downtown maybe lists all of the streets, all of the restaurants, or all of the five-star restaurants, or perhaps only the donut shops. Once more, it could chart the elevation of the ground, the inner workings of the sewer system, the population, the temperature, the list goes on and on and on and on. Maps or models seem to be everything we have in a sense. Even our past would appear to be a subjective interpretation of our memory.
What's more, maps are to be read. This complicates things even further as the reader's subjective ideas/biases/conclusions/beliefs, are at work when interpreting the map, defining and organizing that map into his or her own model of the universe. How often have you and a friend been recounting a past event, when one of you says something like, "that's not how it happened, it was like this"?
The point of this is really that labels are dangerous. If we become too sure of our maps, we can justify doing foolish things. I want to create a dialogue which aids in putting our models into context in order to establish a further clarity.
That was shorter than I expected.
*The word "music," itself, being a model which serves to simplify a complex idea.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Wave/Particle duality - One place where a Multi Model Approach is necessary
So this is something I've mentioned a few times but haven't found a better way to explain. This is the experiment that ended the debate on whether electrons and other subatomic particles are waves or particles- the answer being, it depends on what kind of measurement you are taking. This idea is really helpful in understanding the reason for using a "multi-model approach" as we need both models of subatomic particles to understand what's "really" happening, and we also realized that it was our own biases which were making the phenomena occur or seem strange. Once we stop confusing language (map) for the actual event (territory), the seemingly contradictory nature of using both models to describe the subatomic world fades away. The question ceases to be, "is light particles or is light waves?" and becomes: "What does looking at light as waves help us discover about the nature of things?" and "What does looking at light as particles help us discover about the nature of things?"
Sorry for the corny animation, but this the best summary of the experiment that I could find. it is an oversimplification for sure, but it gets the point across.
Sorry for the corny animation, but this the best summary of the experiment that I could find. it is an oversimplification for sure, but it gets the point across.
Some new books
Really pumped as I got a couple of books while on break.
Tonight I was just loaned a book about Sufism, The Way of the Sufi, which is a mystic tradition that arose from the Islamic tradition but is much like Zen. (lots of brief seemingly contradictory statements, allegories and poetic riddles,)
I also received my copy of Alfred Korzybski's Science and Sanity. I've been trying to get a copy but the Columbus library system doesn't have a copy and they were no cheaper than 60 bucks online. However, one finally showed up for 30 bucks and I nabbed it.
I think, if I can read a substantial portion of it, it will likely have a great impact on my solution. It is one of the primary texts on General Semantics, which Korzybski describes, "In general semantics we are concerned with teh sanity of the race, including particularly methods of prevention; eliminating from home, elementary, and higher education inadequate aristotelian [either/or, a or not a] types of evaluation which too often lead to the un-sanity of the race, and building up for the first time a positive theory of sanity, as a workable non-aristotelian system."
Tonight I was just loaned a book about Sufism, The Way of the Sufi, which is a mystic tradition that arose from the Islamic tradition but is much like Zen. (lots of brief seemingly contradictory statements, allegories and poetic riddles,)
I also received my copy of Alfred Korzybski's Science and Sanity. I've been trying to get a copy but the Columbus library system doesn't have a copy and they were no cheaper than 60 bucks online. However, one finally showed up for 30 bucks and I nabbed it.
I think, if I can read a substantial portion of it, it will likely have a great impact on my solution. It is one of the primary texts on General Semantics, which Korzybski describes, "In general semantics we are concerned with teh sanity of the race, including particularly methods of prevention; eliminating from home, elementary, and higher education inadequate aristotelian [either/or, a or not a] types of evaluation which too often lead to the un-sanity of the race, and building up for the first time a positive theory of sanity, as a workable non-aristotelian system."
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Definitions: Ontology, Guerilla Ontology, Aristotelian/Non-Aristotelian
Important Concepts Relating to My Thesis
Ontology -
Via Wikipedia:
concerns the determining of whether some categories of being are fundamental and asks in what sense the items in those categories can be said to "be". It is the inquiry into being in so much as it is being, or into beings insofar as they exist—and not insofar as, for instance, particular facts obtained about them or particular properties related to them.
Some philosophers, notably of the Platonic school, contend that all nouns (including abstract nouns) refer to existent entities. Other philosophers contend that nouns do not always name entities, but that some provide a kind of shorthand for reference to a collection of either objects or events. In this latter view, mind, instead of referring to an entity, refers to a collection of mental events experienced by a person; society refers to a collection of persons with some shared characteristics, and geometry refers to a collection of a specific kind of intellectual activity.
Via Merriam Webster:
a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being
Guerrilla Ontology-
Loosely inspired by Guerrilla Warfare, it is a way of presenting information, whether fictional or informational, which deliberately organizes the information in such a way that the viewer/audience must constantly question the truth of what is being communicated. The end result being that the viewer becomes more skeptical and less apt to believe any one thing over all other things.
Aristotelian:
For the purposes of my discussion, I will used in the work of Alfred Korzybski and Robert Anton Wilson - Aristotelianism refers to a dogmatic belief in an "either/or" logic. In other words, logic which implies that all things are either 100% true/real or 0% true/real (false).
Why I think it "is" bad:
It is my belief that this kind of logic system, left unchecked, allows for generalizations which oversimplify ideas to the point where they have no actual connection to reality. This plays into the confusion of value judgments (or opinions) with facts. I believe this to be directly related to the appearance of all forms of prejudice, which acts against the human race's best interests.
Non-Aristotelian:
Allows for multiple valued logic: i.e. "maybe logic"Depends on the idea that there is never a 1 to 1 ratio of proof to idea. This comes from the notion that one cannot experience/witness/apprehend all of the universe forever, which would be the only true way to determine the truth of an idea Asserts that all information we can communicate about is closer to a model of the universe than the universe itself and that models can be improved to better interact with the universe.
Ontology -
Via Wikipedia:
concerns the determining of whether some categories of being are fundamental and asks in what sense the items in those categories can be said to "be". It is the inquiry into being in so much as it is being, or into beings insofar as they exist—and not insofar as, for instance, particular facts obtained about them or particular properties related to them.
Some philosophers, notably of the Platonic school, contend that all nouns (including abstract nouns) refer to existent entities. Other philosophers contend that nouns do not always name entities, but that some provide a kind of shorthand for reference to a collection of either objects or events. In this latter view, mind, instead of referring to an entity, refers to a collection of mental events experienced by a person; society refers to a collection of persons with some shared characteristics, and geometry refers to a collection of a specific kind of intellectual activity.
Via Merriam Webster:
a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being
Guerrilla Ontology-
Loosely inspired by Guerrilla Warfare, it is a way of presenting information, whether fictional or informational, which deliberately organizes the information in such a way that the viewer/audience must constantly question the truth of what is being communicated. The end result being that the viewer becomes more skeptical and less apt to believe any one thing over all other things.
Aristotelian:
For the purposes of my discussion, I will used in the work of Alfred Korzybski and Robert Anton Wilson - Aristotelianism refers to a dogmatic belief in an "either/or" logic. In other words, logic which implies that all things are either 100% true/real or 0% true/real (false).
Why I think it "is" bad:
It is my belief that this kind of logic system, left unchecked, allows for generalizations which oversimplify ideas to the point where they have no actual connection to reality. This plays into the confusion of value judgments (or opinions) with facts. I believe this to be directly related to the appearance of all forms of prejudice, which acts against the human race's best interests.
Non-Aristotelian:
Allows for multiple valued logic: i.e. "maybe logic"Depends on the idea that there is never a 1 to 1 ratio of proof to idea. This comes from the notion that one cannot experience/witness/apprehend all of the universe forever, which would be the only true way to determine the truth of an idea Asserts that all information we can communicate about is closer to a model of the universe than the universe itself and that models can be improved to better interact with the universe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)