More food for thought--
I read an article on neurology recently that said that when we remember
an experience, we travel along the same neural pathways that were formed
during the actual experience. So when we remember something, another part
of our brain tags this action as "memory" and not "live" - otherwise the
experience is the same. Without these tags, we wouldn't know whether an
event were "real" or imagined, or memory.
-mk
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Michael D. Kull http://gwis2.circ.gwu.edu/~mkull
Doctoral Fellow -- Management of Science, Technology and Innovation
Department of Management Science, George Washington University 20052
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ยทยทยท
On Thu, 10 Oct 1996, Louis H. Kauffman wrote:
Jude Lombaridi wrote the following on Oct 10, 1996.
The interpolations in CAPS are Lou Kauffman's repsponses.
#####################################>In a message dated 96-10-09 23:49:44 EDT, kauffman@UIC.EDU (Louis H.
>Kauffman) writes:
>
>>The difference is that "love" is a direct experience for a human observer.
>Love is not (at that level) an explanation.
>>
>So love is an experience yet an observer identifies when or what is love with
>an explanation hence is not love also an explanation for a particular
>experience or phenomena.?I MEANT TO BE PROVOCATIVE. THE QUESTION IS, HOW DO WE (CAN WE) DISTINGUISH
BETWEEN AN EXPERIENCE AND AN EXPLANATION OF THAT EXPERIENCE. ALL WE
ACTUALLY DISCUSS ARE OUR STORIES ABOUT OUR EXPERIENCES SINCE AN EXPERIENCE
HAS ALREADY HAPPENED BY THE TIME WE CAN SPEAK IT. NEVERTHELESS THERE IS AN
IMMEDIACY TO ONGOING EXPERIENCE THAT IS QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THE MORE
EXTENDED STRUCTURE OF EXPLANATIONS. INDEED LOVE (AS A CONCEPT) IS AN
EXPLANATION FOR PARTICULAR BEHAVIOUR. INDEED LOVE IS AN EXPLANATION FOR
ITSELF (AS AN ACTION).
>
>How about the biology of love = those behaviors, we say, through which the
>other arrises as a legitimate other in coexistence with oneself. jl
IT IS POSSIBLE TO MAKE AN EXPLANATION FOR THE BEHAVIOUR CALLED LOVE OR
LOVING IN AUTOPOETIC TERMS. IF THE OBSERVER IS INCLUDED, THEN THIS
EXPLANATION CAN ITSELF BE A FORM OF LOVING, I.E. A PATH WITH HEART.
>
>In a message dated 96-10-09 23:49:44 EDT, kauffman@UIC.EDU (Louis H.
>Kauffman) writes:
>
><It is in this sense that mathematical constructs have a firmer reality than
>physical explanations. We experience mathematics directly.
>
>In a message dated 96-10-09 23:49:44 EDT, kauffman@UIC.EDU (Louis H.
>Kauffman) writes:
>
>How is this?
WHAT?
>
>In a message dated 96-10-09 23:49:44 EDT, kauffman@UIC.EDU (Louis H.
>Kauffman) writes:
>
>Second order cybernetics is directly concerned with the the observer that is
>her own
>self description. A description that comes into being for itself is not an
>explanation and it cannot be explained. At least that much is plain! Best,
>Lou K.>>
>
>One's 'own self description' in relation with his or her phenomena to be
>explained which includes oneself. no?
YES.
>
>I do not understand how a description comes into being for itself...do you
>mean formulations of mathmatics lead to formulations of mathmatics directly?
>Or am I just completely confused? jlI ALSO DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW A DESCRIPTION (DISTINCTION) COMES INTO BEING
FOR ITSELF. YET THIS IS OUR EXPERIENCE. A QUOTE FROM SPENCER-BROWN:" ...WE
CANNOT ESCAPE THE FACT THAT THE WORLD WE KNOW IS CONSTRUCTED IN ORDER (AND
THUS IN SUCH A WAY AS TO BE ABLE) TO SEE ITSELF. THIS IS INDEED AMAZING.
NOT SO MUCH IN VIEW OF WHAT IT SEES, ALTHOUGH THIS MAY APPEAR FANTASTIC
ENOUGH, BUT IN REPSECT OF THE FACT THAT IT CAN SEE AT ALL."
>
> (ps I will be away from the computer till Oct 19 and await Your response
>Lou. jl