Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-kirk!williams From: williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: On the value of metaphors Message-ID: <3410@decwrl.UUCP> Date: Mon, 20-Aug-84 18:17:57 EDT Article-I.D.: decwrl.3410 Posted: Mon Aug 20 18:17:57 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 22-Aug-84 03:44:24 EDT Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP Organization: DEC Engineering Network Lines: 115 Ripping you to shreds is not pleasurable empathetically. I will attempt to explain this gracefully: > How is an entity identified, and what is its environment? In what > way is an entity subject to its environment? If the entity and > the environment are separate, how does the environment go about > affecting the entity? What is the nature of an entity? How is it > identified other than by its causal interactions? What does this > really say? This might adequately be described as a partition. It is a way of describing a portion of observed space that has some measure of isolation, as opposed to being part of a homogeneous mass. It is understood that there is no complete isolation, only a degree of isolation where influence is applied. A simple test for primitive identity is whether or not you may pass your hand through it. The space contained within that entity is isolated from your direct access. You are free to influence it, but it will not do your bidding simply because you wish it to. The key word here is INFLUENCE. An entity is seperated by a partition and can be described in a way that distinguishes it from the rest of the universe. You might also call it a correlation. From my understanding, an entity is enclosed within partitions defined within a context that allow it to fulfill certain criteria of independence. > Since we can only observe correlations, but not inherent natures, > this seems pretty rock-solid to me. Causation is as certain as > the universe chooses to make it. As long as the correlations > hold perfectly, it is certain. But what possible argument can > you make for a claim that the laws of the universe won't be > totally different tomorrow? Do you see that saying "because they > have always worked that way" assumes the conclusion? Long term observations have reinforced our perspective of the universe. The universe WILL be different tommorrow, but in a very gradual manner. The possibility of my waking up in a universe where none of the laws of physics applied is SOOOO small, I choose to show my confidence in this fact by choosing a strong word to describe it. Tommorow, the laws of physics as we understand them WILL still apply. > It is a matter of the definition of "know". All you need are > beliefs which have reasonable predictive ability in order to > function. I can know that 2+2=4, which is totally independent of > the particular nature of reality, although I never would have > gotten around to finding that analytical truth without having > synthesized it from aspects of reality. I can believe very > strongly that the sun will rise tomorrow, although I can't > possibly know it. Kant accepted his dichotomy without it > hampering his ability to function in the "real" world, so I find > statements like yours very strange. Again you choose a word that is too weak to adequately describe your certainty. I take the position that these words need not be restricted in use to only systematic languages. In reality, nothing is absolutely certain, but why cut off a portion of the language that is very useful in order to satisfy this? Wouldn't it make alot more sense ( and be alot more descriptive ) to modify the childish meanings of these words in your own mind in order to communicate with those who might not be as enlightened as you appear to be. > This is the same line you take with cosmology, and it rings of > Von Daniken. I am also against people swallowing things whole, > but I see little evidence that most philosophers who share a > position with other philosophers, whether conventional or not, > got there with any less deep thought and analysis or more > sheeplike behavior than what led you or people you happen to > agree with to your positions. If you insist on relying strickly on your own definitions, then you will be cutting yourself off into your own entity, possibly more than your might actually care to. If the symbol isolation means anything to you, try this one: I do not feel as though it is in the best interest to reduce the variety of words we have to choose from in communicating, on the contrary, I feel as though we should let the vocabulary expand. Intelligent language must have metaphors, it is how you are able to develop language at all! If you insist on trying to enforce your distinctions on the populace, especially the young and inexperienced, you will not find them receptive. You will be cutting off your foundations. You will be driven mad by those who refuse to follow your rules of definition. If I could suggest anything to you, I would suggest a good book on Psychology. Philosophy has a definite value, but you should be cautious that you are not distorting the symbols you present. There is no need to undermine another's self confidence in order to meet your criteria for accuracy. You are basically faced with the problem of quantisizing reality in communicating, and by trying to apply universal context to words, you impose limitations in articulation. I am willing to let my words imply a level of strength of symbol interconnection, and let the words I choose be a measure of confidence. This is NOT sheeplike behaviour. I just refuse to accept your simplified version of the language. > -- Jim Balter (ima!jim) A metaphor is like a beam of knowledge shining through a cloud of nonsense. What was once dark, is now visible. It is a puzzle where the pieces interlock, and is built upon foundation. An analogy of symbols. A means of growth. A gratification that makes learning at all worthwhile. A common ground. A certain grace. Hopefully this has proved valuable to you. ----{ john williams }---- (DEC E-NET) KIRK::WILLIAMS (UUCP) {decvax, ucbvax, allegra}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-kirk!williams (ARPA) williams%kirk.DEC@decwrl.ARPA williams%kirk.DEC@Purdue-Merlin.ARPA