OT: Aristotle and Reality (was Re: Coffeehouse Guitar vsstreet-busker)

[mech <mech@m3ch.net>]

At 3:10 PM -0400 7/20/06, Matthew.Quinn@sunlife.com wrote:
>
>I mostly posted that link as a joke re: Kris's corollary of R is R!  ;)

Oh yeah, don't worry.  That was totally apparent.  But it was also 
useful to start/continue the conversation.  :)

>But I would be interested to hear what you disagree with!

'Kay, a couple of quick things: according to the page, Aristotle's 
concept of Identity is based primarily (exclusively?) on an object's 
characteristics -- physical for the most part.  Also important is 
that to him, Identity is immutable, without change.  However, what 
if, as is the case with several tools, an object is instead defined 
by its function.  One of the most easily accessible examples (and the 
one that first got me thinking about it in the first place) is 
actually the title of an album by Wire: "A bell is a cup, until it is 
struck."

Thus, depending upon an object's function, its identity can change, 
which contradicts Aristotle's "A = A" law as explained above.

Also, keep in mind that reality is largely subjective.  Aristotle 
approaches Reality from an objective point of view.  I can think of 
two consequences right offhand that fall from this; both as a 
consequence owing to the fact that the human mind is a 
pattern-recognition engine.

The first is repeatability.  Repeatability is the key to hypothesis, 
theory, and ultimately the whole rational world of the Scientific 
Method.  However, there are events and objects which are 
non-repetetive -- one-shot only.  Just as you need two points to 
create a line, you need multiple instances of an occurrence/object to 
compare and contrast, then use to create a hypothesis based upon 
their similarities and differences.  This is the source of what is 
often referred to as "Fortean" phenomena -- occurrences which happen 
outside a known context, and do not recur with a frequency by which 
they can establish a context on their own.  Which brings us to the 
second consequence....

Without multiple instances to establish context, the mind frequently 
manufactures analogs with which to compare the unknown object/event. 
I think this dovetails on Greek philosophy (Socrates?) positing that 
somewhere (in this case, in the mind) there is an "ultimate form" of 
every object, and that all instances of this form are merely shadows 
of that ultimate form.  This is assuming there are enough 
characteristics inherent within that object to compare with objects 
previously encountered to even recognize.  Aside: my suspicion -- 
almost wholly unprovable, of course -- is that if one were faced with 
something *completely* alien to their past experience or 
conditioning, they might not even process the sensory data.  Hence, 
such an object may be completely undetectable, or merely sensed as an 
anomaly rather than fully comprehended.

Using pattern recognition data, we formulate systems to assign 
identity to objects.  However, what if instead of looking at an 
object as its Identity (a cup is a cup) we strip away that 
repeatability and recognition (this cup is, erm, what?).  Look at 
what's there in your hand without the label "cup".  Is it ceramic, 
plastic, or metal (yes, I know that these descriptive terms are also 
pattern identities -- or characteristics -- and based on similar 
learned responses, but I only want to go so far right now)?  Pretend 
you're holding a new and alien object devoid of context, and you'll 
come much closer to experiencing the "reality" of what you're 
actually holding.

Of course, without taking advantage of the symbols and language used 
by our brains in everyday life, we wouldn't be able to function.  Can 
you comprehend what it would be like if we had to relearn every 
individual object and experience with which we came into contact 
every day?  Just keep in mind that the "object" in your hand is not 
necessarily the object your brain has associated it to.

So much for sophomore epistemology....  However, it does show that 
the mind has just as much a part in fabricating reality as what is 
directly in front of us.  Aristotle often tries to codify reality 
into objective terns, and that's where most of my "exceptions" get 
there start.  While his goal is a noble starting point (hell, I can't 
think of where else we could start -- can you imagine having a debate 
without ever defining common terms, or for that matter, even 
establishing language?), it has to be recognized that there are 
pitfalls and exceptions.

Um, yeah.  Heh, is that enough "navel gazing" to begin with?  Now 
let's see if any of that ties back in with Kris' musings on 
individual subjective experiences of a musical performance, and the 
"black box".  ;)

        --m.
-- 
_______
"If Television is a babysitter, then the Internet is a drunk 
librarian who won't shut up..."