From Bob Clark (931219.2000 EST)
Bill Powers (931217.1940 MST)
You refer to my post, Bob Clark (931217.1725 EST). That post was the
last (temporarily?) of a series. To clarify the situation, let's go
back to the beginning:
RKC:
WORDS & CONFUSION - RKC: From Bob Clark (931208 1400 EST)
"Work is the "product of a force and the component of a displacement
parallel to the force."
WTP:
Many Topics: From Bill Powers (931209.0600 MST)
"Energy can be reduced to the product of force and distance, which
are measurable aspects of the situation, but force and distance
cannot be reduced to energy."
RKC:
ENERGY - RKC: From Bob Clark (931214.1645)
""Reduction" is not an appropriate concept here. Energy is _defined_
as the product of force and the component of distance parallel to the
force."
WTP:
System equations and abstractions: From Bill Powers (931214.1950 MST)
[with reference to both Martin Taylor and Bob Clark of the same date]
"Both of you questioned my statement that energy can be "reduced to"
force and distance, but not vice versa. Perhaps I used the wrong
term. I meant that energy can be expressed as a function of force
and distance, but neither force nor distance can be expressed as a
function of energy."
RKC:
ABSTRACTIONS/ENERGY-RKC: From Bob Clark (931217.1725 EST)
"In this situation, I do not understand the phrase, "reduced to."
Your elaboration does not help. To me the relation among energy,
force, distance and angle between force and distance is simply an
algebraic expression."
WTP:
Measured versus derived variables: From Bill Powers (931217.1940 MST)
"The point I'm trying to make is not easy to state in a sensible way.
It has to do not with the structure of the algebraic relationships
but with how they're used in describing phenomena. What you say is,
of course, algebraically true. To simplify somewhat, given a force f
and the distance d through which it acts, one can express the energy
as E = f * d. And from that, it follows that given any two of these
variables, the third can be calculated."
RKC:
Now, in this Post, today, From Bob Clark (931219.2000 EST):
Bill, I think I should have known better. I was immersed in the
Physics-Math-Chem domain and assumed you were in the same vicinity.
I was surprised at your unusual use of "reduction" in this context.
Knowing you, I should have noticed a change of viewpoint to that of
PCT.
Your further statement in the same post:
Physics consists largely of derived variables and relationships
among them.
and, later:
What I have been talking about here has, of course, a direct
parallel in the levels of perception. Even the highest levels of
perception are, in principle, traceable to the level of
observation, which is the level of raw sensory signals. Each level
contains perceptions that are specifiable functions of variables of
the level below.
Bill, this is a very fundamental matter that we discussed, and agreed
on over 30 years ago. It is obvious to me that we are still in
complete agreement.
Briefly: "All we know is derived from sensory peceptions."
OK?
I think we are also in agreement about the following:
This becomes complicated by our ability to combine perceptions from
several sources, including remembered perceptions (and their
combinations).
Language is a particularly important case of such combinations. It
consists of sounds, symbols, etc that are perceived. To become
language, they are combined with other sensory perceptions (and their
perceived combinations) to form words and other components of
language.
This is where the "dictionary problem" arises, that is pointed out
from time to time. (Recently, I think, by Martin Taylor.) We have
words defined by other words, and it tends to become circular. The
circle can best be broken by turning to direct experience -- the
"experimental method." Unfortunately, people, and language, are so
flexible and adaptable that the original experiences can be lost.
After remarking about S-R and cognitive planning, you remark;
If that test had been done, the assumption would quickly have been
proven false, and an assumption justifiable by observation used
instead. And then we would have had a structure of thought about
behavior just as solidly based on observation as physics is, or used
to be.
Certainly, Bill. Building such a "solidly based structure" is still
what we both, together with the CSG are trying to do.
However, we are sometimes distracted by attempts to apply the
language and concepts of physics without using its methods of
analysis.
I hope, by presenting more accurate statements of physical terms and
concepts, that the relation between derived concepts and the
perceptions of which they are composed may be clarified.
No sensory experience can be defined without a sample. That, of
course, is the thought behind your several demonstrations.
A "general purpose" challenge: Can anyone define the "taste of
chocolate" in words without using similes or metaphors?
Regards, Bob Clark