990114 1130 - Opinion poll B XVI Results after 1 day

Go to: Next / Index

Von: todesco <todesco@compuserve.com>
An: Marco Bettoni <m.bettoni@fhbb.ch>; Robert Ottiger <ottiger@swissonline.ch>; Rolf Todesco <todesco@compuserve.com>
Betreff: Fw: OPINION POLL B XVI: RESULTS AFTER
Datum: Donnerstag, 14. Januar 1999 11:34

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: ed.s@sfnet.com <ed.s@sfnet.com>
An: Multiple recipients of list <kant-l@bucknell.edu>
Datum: Dienstag, 12. Januar 1999 21:29
Betreff: OPINION POLL B XVI: RESULTS AFTER

> May one ask what this fundamental task is, whether only in your
> opinion or in
> some alleged majority/minority views these days? Then perhaps how it is
> addressed will become clear to more readers, including me.

>>> - 3.b =3D the question is paradox, fictitious and socratic
>> * I do not see how a question like "do you experience that more
> Let me guess at what is meant -
>I don't experience any such thing either way. At most I might have
opinions
>about the opinions and paradigms of other folks, and I might experience my
>opinions as such (I might know what I believe). As such, the question as
>stated is asking for hearsay and personal opinion, thus largely fictitious
as
>opposed to factual, and hardly indicative of science. If the alleged
dichotomy
>is a false dichotomy, then one might call the question paradoxical. In my
>thinking about knowing, knowing "works both ways" (A and B); to call that
a
>dichotomy is to cut an apple in two and say "Look! It was two parts all
>along." If we then ask which piece some people seem to favor, what does
>that accomplish for science?

Ich finde auch das eine interessante Argumentation: Ed Severinghaus
"guess't"
was ich meinte. Natürlich meint er, was er meint.

>If a question is posed to teach something about proper thinking, can it be
>called 'socratic' and be not merely rhetorical?
>I suppose one of the fundamental issues is that how you ask a question can
>influence the answer you get, something well known to professional
pollsters,
>for instance. Is that the point, in regards "fundamental task of
cognitive
>science"?

auch hier "guess't" er ziemlich anders als ich, aber natürlich auch zu
recht.

---------------- Antwort von Marco an Ed -----------------

>In a famous letter to his friend Markus Herz (Feb. 1772) Kant wrote that
he
>was planning to publish a work in which he wanted to answer the question
>"auf welchem Grunde beruhet die Beziehung desjenigen, was man in uns
>Vorstellung nennt, auf den Gegenstand" (on which ground is founded the
>relation between what we call 'Vorstellung' in us and the object).
>Fifteen years later, in the Critique of pure reason, B XVI, Kant presents
>the answer to that question as the central hypothesis of his work.

Ich frage Dich Marco: "auf welchem Grunde beruhet die Beziehung, die Du
zwischen dem Brief an Herz und der Kritik machst ?

>To answer that Kantian question, this is the FUNDAMENTAL TASK. Kant has
>already solved it. But after him the desert.
auch seltsam, oder ? Oder gerade nicht ? Wenn ein Problem gelöst ist, ist
es eben aufgelöst. Heinz von Foerster sagt dazu: Alle Erklärungen lassen
Probleme verschwinden.

> I think that the FUNDAMENTAL TASK of any cognitive science and philosophy
of
> science should be:

Bevor ich überhaupt lese, was da kommen mag, frage ich mich natürlich,
was ist Philosophie ? Wem dient sie wozu ? (Marco: das frage ich mich,
weil ich diese Frage studiert habe, während Du Ingenieur wurdest).

Dann frage ich mich dasselbe für die cognitiv science. Und in bezug auf
diese
"science" habe ich meine "Technische Intelligenz" geschrieben (und bin
damit
der Philosophen-Schule entwachsen), was ich vorläufig als Radikalen
Konstruktivismus bezeichne. Wie gut diese Bezeichnung ist, werde ich in
unserem
KnowPort-Projekt noch lernen.

Jetzt erst schaue ich die Tasks an:

> 1) to accept the question about the relation between knowledge and
reality
> 2) once the question is accepted, to explicitly reflect upon the relation
> between knowledge and reality.
> This means reflecting upon the relation between "Vorstellung" and
> "Gegenstand", between model and original (referent), between observer and
> things independent from the observer.

Genau das ist augenfällig nicht der Fall - und fast ausschliessliches Thema
meines
unwissenschaftlichen Buches Technische Intelligenz.

>Typical questions in this task could be ( Ref. Humberto Maturana,
> "Explanations and Reality", Talk in Heidelberg, October 18, 1992):
> 1. "How comes that I can do whatever I can do ?"
>2. "How comes that I can say that thing is there, independent of me ?"
>3. "What validates our explanations ?"
>4. "Am I able to make reference to something that exists independent from
>me, that validates eventually what I say ?"
>5. "What gives validity to what I am saying ?"
>6. "Is what I say validated through something independent from me ?"
>7. "Are the explanations that I propose ultimately validated by the
>thingness of that thing, there, independent from me ?"
>8. "Am I aware that I have no way of making reference to anything
>independent from me to validate my explaining ?"
>9. "How do I know ?"
>10. "Are my statements demands for obedience ?"
>11. "Are my statements invitations to participate in something ?"
>12. "Is my explaining validated through my coherences of experience ?"
>13. "Do I own the truth ?"

Das finde ich ein ausgezeichnete Zusammenfassung des Referates,
Besten Dank dafür.

Ich staune aber schon, dass Du ernsthaft geltend machst, dass diese Deine
Frage als Frage gemeint ist, und nicht als sokratischer Trick.

Herzlich

Rolf