Map and Territory redux

Great Debates
21

I think you’re on the wrong side of the question now. Of course it is detatched from reality: it is only representing it. But what is a representation, then, if all we have are representations? In what sense could something not represent?

I should like to say: something can fail to represent only inasmuch as something can perfectly represent. And what is a perfect representation? —not a measure of certainty per se, but an element of knowledge.

But in what sense does a perfect representation really represent anything? Do we instead only have a representation of a perfect representation? When is a concept ever clear?

We took a measurement tack before, so let’s stick with that. We can say that an inch, meter, or rod is an arbitrary form of measurement. Which unit we choose is more or less only a matter of practicality. But saying an object is an inch long, is this still arbitrary?

I have no familiarity with the Celcius scale of temperature measurement, for example. You tell me it is 24 Celcius degrees outside. That sentence represents, to me, a phrasing of Farenhieght measurement which I do not understand. If the thermometer reads 75 then it is 75, not 24. And it isn’t seeming to be 75, I am not “reading it as” 75. Point of fact, though my system is arbitrary, it is necessary. If you remove the Farenhieght scale I have to relearn temperature.

But now: was it ever in question that there was a temperature to measure? Why is the scale the representation? Shouldn’t, in fact, even “temperature” be a representation? If you say “yes”, then don’t you have to answer: “…of what?” Because that’s the core question. I know something epistemologically… is this knowledge a representation of the thing known? Then what is a representation itself that I may contrast it with things that are not representations?

If everything is a representation, then there is nothing to represent, there is no thing that is represented. That being the case, there can be no empirical standard for assigning truth and falsity to a proposition, there is only what is done, and even that can’t be stated.

The null-epistemology.

22

Going back to Godel, Escher, Bach we can say that “We know X” where X can be any statement of fact. Of course we could then say that “We know that we know X” and “We know that we know that we know X” and “We know that we know that we know that we know X” ad infinitum. At no point can we say “We just know X damnit! No more!” because we’ll still know that “We know that we just know X damnit!”. It never ends. Therefore at some fundamental level our brains are hardwired to simply accept certain basic facts from which all others are in some way derived. We simply accept that certain things are so.

Sort of a singularity point of “I know X!”. Hmm… or maybe we could think of that cascade of “I know” statements it as being infinitely true and therefore “true” for all intents and purposes. Certainly when examining proofs mathematicians don’t compare the proof to the number 1, then the number 2, then 3, 4, etc. Since there are an infinite number of numbers such an attempt would be futile. What is done is simply show, through pure logic, that in all cases Z, rule Y applies without needing to actually iterate through all possible cases in set Z.

So, basically, I think Jeff pretty much hit the nail on the head with this quote:

Grim

23

Eris -

A representation isn’t an “itself”… it makes no sense to contrast “a representation” with a thing, because representation is not a thing, it’s a process. The trouble, as I pointed out with the sex 'n drugs example, is that we tend to treat processes as if they were things.

You can, through the process of representation, say “75 degrees” stands for a certain amount of relative motion in a given amount of molecules. You can also, through the process of representation, say “24 degrees” stands for a certain amount of relative motion in the exact same given amount of molecules. The reality (molecules) is the same in either case, the representation process is the same in either case (the process, uh,“does the same thing” to the reality and ends up with the same result).

But look at it this way: freezing a cup of water in the lab is different than freezing the same cup of water outside in the snow, but the difference is in the location, not the freezing… the process is the same. The only reason “75 degrees” is different than “24 degrees” is that you’ve applied the process of representation to the process of representation, “thingifying” it. It would be like saying “Well, sure, the water’s the same but the frozen’s different”. Freezing is freezing. Water frozen in the lab is just as frozen as water frozen outdoors. A process of representation is not distinguishable from another process of representation until you try to represent it.

It’s not that everything is a representation, it’s that everything can be a representation for everything else.

24

Eris -

A representation isn’t an “itself”… it makes no sense to contrast “a representation” with a thing, because representation is not a thing, it’s a process. The trouble, as I pointed out with the sex 'n drugs example, is that we tend to treat processes as if they were things.

You can, through the process of representation, say “75 degrees” stands for a certain amount of relative motion in a given amount of molecules. You can also, through the process of representation, say “24 degrees” stands for a certain amount of relative motion in the exact same given amount of molecules. The reality (molecules) is the same in either case, the representation process is the same in either case (the process, uh,“does the same thing” to the reality and ends up with the same result).

But look at it this way: freezing a cup of water in the lab is different than freezing the same cup of water outside in the snow, but the difference is in the location, not the freezing… the process is the same. The only reason “75 degrees” is different than “24 degrees” is that you’ve applied the process of representation to the process of representation, “thingifying” it. It would be like saying “Well, sure, the water’s the same but the frozen’s different”. Freezing is freezing. Water frozen in the lab is just as frozen as water frozen outdoors. A process of representation is not distinguishable from another process of representation until you try to represent it.

It’s not that everything is a representation, it’s that everything can be a representation for everything else.

25

I’ve been without internet for a while eris…

“”""""""Well, here we agree. In fact, in most cases I think our language only allows us to say just slightly more than can be said. But mustn’t it do this if language is to be able to change over time to match a dynamic reality? Each word is like a room with a wall missing. Thousands of years ago it was a small shack with an open wall. Now it is like a maze of paths leading in every direction. Becuase there is always (metaphorically) an open border, a word can be used nonsensically; that is, it can be used in a manner that doesn’t fit it but (because of the open wall) doesn’t not fit it, either. In this realm a word is sensible nonsense.

Contrariwise, because there is no “perfect” border, we can never “really” tell if a word is being used absolutely correctly because the walls are never complete."""""""""""

Hate to be a butt on this one, BUT — (yes, ‘yes butting’ is annoying…), you’re talking about words as opposed to concepts. It’s the difference between number and numeral.
My new step father loaned me a book upon a visit called “Godels Proof” that I just read a few hours ago… I doesn’t seem to state more than the obvious:

Object is a lack of process. That’s how I’d transcribe the proof.
We covered this a bit in PP, in regards to being everything except what your believing yourself to be.

The key seems to be getting fundamental statements to negate themselves (talking about themselves); in order to establish and/or dissolve paradoxes of this nature and resolve impermeable existent concepts in regards to awareness - and presumably some sort of relatrionship (process) that requires something outside itself in which to divide. I found it interesting that number theorists attempt to map process by exponents; I always assumed all the operands would have to be mapped to division before we had a clear grasp (a VERY powerful tool) with which to calculate systems which speak about themselves.

I do not see any problem with our ability to map rationality as a field; as such difficulties collapse purpose itself; suggesting oblivion - which clearly doesn’t seem to be occurring right now!

-Justhink

-Justhink

26

It is this difference which plagues me in this thread! Statements about matters-of-fact: how does this happen?

Verification seems to be a pointless activity or question-begging.

27

“”""""“Somewhere in all of our representations must be a representation that is also the thing it represents”""""""

Difference. Represents itself without contradiction. I’ve been hammering this for a while now =)

It looks like otherwise mentioned it as well:

""But that’s part of what I’m trying to say; representations (and “things”) are already de-tached “”
One area that seems to require extreme tip-toeing is in regards to the concept of ‘nothing’.

That one word, so far as I can tell, is the only word which should not exist. Again, I’ve been hammering that negations (nothing, zero etc…) are dependant upon a lack of perceptual acuity.
Well… it seems that motion itself depends on this absence too.
Difference however, requires this state to exist.

I’ve tried to articulate a Law of Difference which takes precidence over any other concievable axiom -

Without difference,
Any thing(s) or non-thing(s); everything and every non-thing,
Would be: Nothing at all.

All rationality is derived from this axiom.

It basically states:

Without difference, not only would we not be here; nothing at all would be here. If everything is the same; everything is nothing.
Actually, anything that is the same as another thing is nothing - which we demonstrated earlier with the letter “A”- a statement also true of all representations or reconstructions (as objectivity cannot exist in ‘self-aware’ beings). Taking the self-awareness out and turning it into a pure processor is a different story.

Another reason why nothing can be the exactly the same, is that this type of process is conditional upon a mechanism on the outside which acts as a record player on a scratched record.
It will mean nothing to us from the inside, as our perception of time will effectively freeze until the skip is passed - it also eludes to a state which exists outside the repetition; difference.

If logic doesn’t stop/start at difference, it has no line.

Absolute unification is zero and true zero is not readily evident; though people can actually decide not to do anything, thus expressing a consistent belief in it. The ‘theory’ is that people who do that, die - maybe that’s the fear we’re all supposed to overcome to actually show faith.

The Law of Existence is meaningless IMO
The Law of Identity actually contradicts itself IMO.

-Justhink

28

This is extremely murky, I think. The topic, that is. I mean, let’s take other-wise’s point: representations are already detatched. But then a representation isn’t representing. Implicit in the notion of representing is that there is something to represent that this thing does. Some mechanism, to put a phrase there rather inelegantly.

To use an example from a certain philosopher, suppose I curse my coworker, Mr CT. “Damn that CT.” Now, I am not damning the name, nor my concept of him (should we posit that such a thing exists); I am damning that very man. And am I sure this connection was established without error (Ask yourself this next time you say something about your own mother; are you sure the connection to her was established? —How do you call her?)? Then it must be very simple to establish! So how does it happen that the representaiton represents?

In what sense can I distinguish a representation from the thing itself if (for it to be a representation) both must be present? And if they are both present, then not everything is a representation; sometimes we actually have the territory there in front of us (contrary to, for example, Kant or Hume; we have the thing itself there, unmediated).

I mean, of course, a model of a car is quite obviously (in our reality and society) distinguishable from the car it is a model of. But yet, for all that, it is a model of the car; it represents it. And now we point to the car being represented and say, “This is the very thing.” To what does this refer? That is, the word in that context is now the representation; how does it achieve the effect it does? Is it the same effect as the scale model on the table, or the CAD file saved on the computer?

It is as if each [meaningful] word, or sentence, had an arrow which pointed at a thing it means (in a simple tongue; for example, considering only nouns). Barring the fact that all of these are inherently underdetermined for the moment (that is, let us assume a context here), how does this arrow manifest itself?

If we have a block diagram as such:
[proposition] -> [meaning] -> [referent]
what do we do with the arrows (in this quite limited case)? That is:
[->] -> [???]

29

I’ve been acutely aware of the fine detail of process and value for quite some time now, and have come to the conclusion that all operands need to be mapped to one system (I select division).

Eventually, you’re going to have a ‘black-box’ in there somewhere which still provides the perception of meaning for the system.
If you start dividing integers and pay attention to the output, you’ll begin to notice patterns of integers acting as operators from other systems (addition, subtraction, multiplication and a number of others). What you cannot do is process how division itself is being mapped within division without always running into the black-box effect. If this process is abstracted; it effectively dissolves the symbolic memory of all the previous associations; so that the numbers will appear much like they did at the outset of looking for patterns of numbers acting as operators (so that you can slowly remove operators from existence and rely on number processing with only one extraction method (I choose division).

This is not a brick wall however IMO; as the output from the pressure applied to this ‘black-box’ should represent the input from the area it was translocated from prior. basically, you are forcing the black box to talk about itself by placing pressure upon it’s non-existence - something that is impossible - as none of us would exist. To the extent that numbers are mapped into another language (such as English); English input will achieve English output - these are ‘sentient’ entities being accessed through a numerical system - to provide the additional feedback from areas which collapse our own awareness. By narrowing the band of motion to one location - forces the access to tell the truth about itself - as there is literally no-where else it can go without contradicting existence itself (the perception of difference and process). If it cannot or does not admit itself then; then we cannot be here discussing it now - that seems to be the general principle of rationality and mapping in general. Suffice it to say, not very much operand mapping has been undertaken in mathematics (from what I know) – you’d think they’d at least have addition mapped into division by now!

-Justhink