Maybe, that is the problem. Can’t you look at a coastline and see the beauty of it without thinking about fractals? Can you not enjoy a flower w/o thinking of Phi?
No, why should I? It adds to the awesomeness of coastlines that they are paradoxically unmeansurable, and that flower leaves grow according to repulsion which results in fibbonachi spiral systems.
I can already do the simple trick of “that’s a pretty thing” but when I think about the maths it gets better.
Also, if by reductionism you are talking about reducing objects down to their interactions, this is where things get unnecessarily complex for the ‘normal’ folks.
By reductionism I mean the reductionist thesis: The brain has a multi-level model of reality but reality is single-level. Reducing a rainbow means finding out that raindrops cause rainbows by refraction.
The reason why reductionism is important is that by virtue of Mind Projection, we might be tempted to think that Rainbows are fundamental, solely because we haven’t reduced them to constituent parts yet, so our world-model contains an opague black box called “rainbows.”
Reduce down to a distinction between objects and concepts FIRST. Once that is straight, talk about how ‘things’ interface.
I may have wrongly determined (because of your name) that you held the same view as other plasma cosmologists (the Electric Universe folks) that I have been talking with the last couple of weeks. Their view is that reality is at the single level, but ‘observable reality’ (the multi-level model) is the interface between the brain and reality. Consequently, all their discussions are about the interface (phenomena).
If so, then understanding the difference between an object and a concept might help one come up with ways to make reductionism kewl for the ‘normal’ folk. Math is an abstract and dynamic language that may be good for describing (predicting) phenomena like rainbows (concepts) but raindrops are static objects and better understood by illustration.
While the math concepts make the rainbow all the more beautiful and wonderful for you, this may not be the case for normal folks. I for one have a better “attitude” about so called knowledge when it makes sense. When I understand the objects involved, the phenomena is naturally more fascinating.
But as you suggested, I may be totally misunderstanding the Scourge of Perverse-mindedness.
BTW: The negative thumbs are not mine, but most likely your peers trying to tell you not to talk to me. If you doubt this check my history.… Take care!
No, why should I? It adds to the awesomeness of coastlines that they are paradoxically unmeansurable, and that flower leaves grow according to repulsion which results in fibbonachi spiral systems.
I can already do the simple trick of “that’s a pretty thing” but when I think about the maths it gets better.
By reductionism I mean the reductionist thesis: The brain has a multi-level model of reality but reality is single-level. Reducing a rainbow means finding out that raindrops cause rainbows by refraction.
The reason why reductionism is important is that by virtue of Mind Projection, we might be tempted to think that Rainbows are fundamental, solely because we haven’t reduced them to constituent parts yet, so our world-model contains an opague black box called “rainbows.”
What do you mean?
“What do you mean?”
I may have wrongly determined (because of your name) that you held the same view as other plasma cosmologists (the Electric Universe folks) that I have been talking with the last couple of weeks. Their view is that reality is at the single level, but ‘observable reality’ (the multi-level model) is the interface between the brain and reality. Consequently, all their discussions are about the interface (phenomena).
If so, then understanding the difference between an object and a concept might help one come up with ways to make reductionism kewl for the ‘normal’ folk. Math is an abstract and dynamic language that may be good for describing (predicting) phenomena like rainbows (concepts) but raindrops are static objects and better understood by illustration.
While the math concepts make the rainbow all the more beautiful and wonderful for you, this may not be the case for normal folks. I for one have a better “attitude” about so called knowledge when it makes sense. When I understand the objects involved, the phenomena is naturally more fascinating.
But as you suggested, I may be totally misunderstanding the Scourge of Perverse-mindedness.
BTW: The negative thumbs are not mine, but most likely your peers trying to tell you not to talk to me. If you doubt this check my history.… Take care!