Michael Darling (madarlin@ouray.cudenver.edu)
Sat, 27 Jun 1998 19:10:03 +0100
>From and to Horse, dated 18 Jun
Theo :
"I'm convinced that the language is available
to us to achieve recognition without the need to distort it."
Jonathan :
"I largely agree, but think that finding the right language is not a
simple task. This is what frustrated Bohr about the definitions of
Quantum Mechanics. But what I take some issue with is the possibility to
state "without the need to distort". IMO *distortion* is always
involved - but I'd prefer a word with less negative connotations. Any
organization of ideas or pattern formation is a type of distortion."
Horse:
"Perhaps "confuse" or "obfuscate" should be substituted for distort."
These seem just as negative as 'distort'... How about "interpret"?
Which begs the question- can there be recognition with out
interpretation? It seems like I want it to be possible. If it is not
then the language of recognition will always distort or obfuscate.
Later-
Jonathan :
"Water and air molecules don't recognise blue light. They don't have the
appropriate electron organisation pattern."
Horse :
"Water and air molecules don't REACT WITH blue light. They don't have
the appropriate electron organisation pattern."
Can this "recognition" of blue light or "reaction with" blue light be
the interpretation? Assuming, of course, that we leave out the
anthropomorphic implications of intent or choice.
Michael
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:21 CEST