Skip to main content

View Diary: ACM: Can the human mind comprehend today's world? A challenge to all who engage in politics (208 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I think... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    don mikulecky

    ...analysis and integration are both necessary in obtaining knowledge.  There is no conflict between them.

    What would Mothra do?

    by dov12348 on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 05:20:08 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  nor is that the point (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SpecialKinFlag, northsylvania

      we only understand through our models.  The thing about reductionist models is that analytic models always equal synthetic models.  In complex systems theory this is never true.

      An idea is not responsible for who happens to be carrying it at the moment. It stands or falls on its own merits.

      by don mikulecky on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 05:24:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Analytic and synthetic... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lehman scott

        Are you a Kantian in epistemology?  We can't ever know reality?

        What if our models are flawed?

        You raise many more questions than you answer.

        What would Mothra do?

        by dov12348 on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 05:48:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  all models are flawed (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lehman scott

          because they are limited

          we have a new paradigm and a new epistemology

          An idea is not responsible for who happens to be carrying it at the moment. It stands or falls on its own merits.

          by don mikulecky on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 05:51:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What is the new paradigm? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            don mikulecky, lehman scott

            And what is the new epistemology?

            What would Mothra do?

            by dov12348 on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 05:59:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  you want it in a word or a sentence? (0+ / 0-)

              Is that a serious question?  if so here's our book:   Global Insanity: How Homo sapiens Lost Touch with Reality while Transforming the World

              The Global Economy that sustains the civilized world is destroying the biosphere. As a result, civilization, like the Titanic, is on a collision course with disaster. But changing course via the body politic appears to be well nigh impossible, given that much of the populace lives in denial. Why is that? And how did we get into such a fix? In this essay, biologists James Coffman and Donald Mikulecky argue that the reductionist model of the world developed by Western civilization misrepresents life, undermining our ability to regulate and adapt to the accelerating anthropogenic transformation of the world entrained by that very model. An alternative worldview is presented that better accounts for both the relational nature of living systems and the developmental phenomenology that constrains their evolution. Development of any complex system reinforces specific dependencies while eliminating alternatives, reducing the diversity that affords adaptive degrees of freedom: the more developed a system is, the less potential it has to change its way of being. Hence, in the evolution of life most species become extinct. This perspective reveals the limits that complexity places on knowledge and technology, bringing to light our hubristically dysfunctional relationship with the natural world and increasingly tenuous connection to reality. The inescapable conclusion is that, barring a cultural metamorphosis that breaks free of deeply entrenched mental frames that made us what we are, continued development of the Global Economy will lead inexorably to the collapse of civilization.

              An idea is not responsible for who happens to be carrying it at the moment. It stands or falls on its own merits.

              by don mikulecky on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 06:03:29 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  To be honest (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dov12348, lehman scott, Diane Gee

      I see them as being complementary to a large extent as well.  But many people prefer to cling to a more one-dimensional view, as you can easily see by turning on C-Span at any given moment of Congressional coverage.  

      •  You can see them as you wish (0+ / 0-)

        the statements I made about the differences between analytic models and synthetic models have rigorous expression in category theory and these results are myriad in the literature.  Why do  you use the title "Dr"?  It is a bit misleading when you discuss at the level you do.

        An idea is not responsible for who happens to be carrying it at the moment. It stands or falls on its own merits.

        by don mikulecky on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 05:34:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I use the title Dr because I have a doctorate in (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lehman scott, Diane Gee

          one of those reductionist sciences you so dislike.  I'm not a philosopher, nor have I spent any time studying the specific literature you have, because I don't use it on a day to day basis.  My work does not require me to read up on 'category theory', and I did not make any refutation about your statement on analytic and synthetic models, just a very general and vague statement on how I tend to use systems and reductionist viewpoints for my day to day needs.

          If I had realized you only were looking for scholars in your chosen topic of content to comment, I wouldn't have bothered to say anything, and since you don't seem to approve of anything I've said to date, I'll stop polluting your comment thread.

        •  Unnecessarily nasty comment. (0+ / 0-)

          What would Mothra do?

          by dov12348 on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 06:06:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site