View topic - SPEC: Avalon and Analogue and Metaphor...

unforum
a.r.g.b.b

Welcome!

New users, PLEASE read these forum guidelines. New posters, SEARCH before posting and read these rules before posting your killer new campaign. New players may also wish to peruse the ARG Player Tutorial.

All users must abide by the Terms of Service.

Website Restoration Project

This archiving project is a collaboration between Unfiction and Sean Stacey (SpaceBass), Brian Enigma (BrianEnigma), and Laura E. Hall (lehall) with
the Center for Immersive Arts.

Announcements

This is a static snapshot of the
Unfiction forums, as of
July 23, 2017.

This site is intended as an archive to chronicle the history of Alternate Reality Games.

Our Esteemed Contributors

The time now is Sun Nov 17, 2024 11:19 am
All times are UTC - 4 (DST in action)

View posts in this forum since last visit
View unanswered posts in this forum

Calendar

Forum index » Archive » Archive: Chasing the Wish » CTW: General/Updates

SPEC: Avalon and Analogue and Metaphor...

Page 1 of 1 [1 Post]

Author

Message

MageSteff
Pretty talky there aintcha, Talky?

Joined: 06 Jun 2003
Posts: 2716
Location: State of Denial

SPEC: Avalon and Analogue and Metaphor...

Start with Godel's Theory of incompleteness,

http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html

Quote:

...G�del's Theorem has been used to argue that a computer can never be as smart as a human being because the extent of its knowledge is limited by a fixed set of axioms, whereas people can discover unexpected truths ... It plays a part in modern linguistic theories, which emphasize the power of language to come up with new ways to express ideas. And it has been taken to imply that you'll never entirely understand yourself, since your mind, like any other closed system, can only be sure of what it knows about itself by relying on what it knows about itself.

...
...

The other metaphorical analogue to G�del's Theorem which I find provocative suggests that ultimately, we cannot understand our own mind/brains ... Just as we cannot see our faces with our own eyes, is it not inconceivable to expect that we cannot mirror our complete mental structures in the symbols which carry them out? All the limitative theorems of mathematics and the theory of computation suggest that once the ability to represent your own structure has reached a certain critical point, that is the kiss of death: it guarantees that you can never represent yourself totally

which leads to creative problem solving:

http://www.teleologic.net/LOL/encycanalogies.htm

Quote:

Analogies play an important role in creative problem solving. Many scientists and inventors testify to the utility of analogies for helping them to make significant breakthroughs. Alexander Graham Bell credited his study of the human ear and the insight that a small membrane could move relatively heavy earbones with giving him the creative inspiration to develop the telephone. In a similar fashion, Louis Pasteur's study of wine and how outside impurities affected grapes led him to develop the germ theory of disease.

Analogical reasoning uses the following process:

A problem is identified (how do we communicate across distances).
An analogue is observed or comes to mind when a parallel between the analogue and problem is perceived (the ear is observed as the preeminent device of communication).
The solution in the analogue is studied (the structure of the eardrum is analyzed).
The solution in the analogue is applied to the problem (the structure of the eardrum is used as a model for the telephone).
The use of this process can be extremely useful in bringing about an understanding of a system as well as offering insight into problems that may arise within a system. It should also be noted that analogies from nature are incredibly useful for bringing clarity to a difficult problem. The following site may give some more information on using analogies.

Metaphorical Thinking

Metaphorical Thinking leads to:

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~caveman/Creative/Techniques/metaphor.htm

A secret you can't know is how your own mind work...

http://www.ubmail.ubalt.edu/~pfitz/tell/gb/science/gb17_s.htm

Quote:

The other metaphorical analogue to G�del's Theorem which I find provocative suggests that ultimately, we cannot understand our own minds/brains. This is such a loaded, many-leveled idea that one must be extremely cautious in proposing it. What does "understanding our own minds/brains', mean?
...
...
G�del's Theorem suggests that it is impossible, that is hardly a revelation. On the other hand, the age-old goal of knowing yourself in some profound way-let us call it "understanding your own psychic structure"-has a ring of plausibility to it. But might there not be some vaguely Godelian loop which limits the depth to which any individual can penetrate into his own psyche?
...
...
All the limitative Theorems of meta-mathematics and the theory of computation suggest that once the ability to represent your own structure has reached a certain critical point, that is the kiss of death: it guarantees that you can never represent yourself totally. G�del's Incompleteness Theorem, Church's Undecidability Theorem, Turing's Halting Theorem, Tarski's Truth Theorem-all have the flavor of some ancient fairy tale which warns you that "To seek self-knowledge is to embark on a journey which . . . will always be incomplete, cannot be charted on any map, will never halt, cannot be described."

But do the limitative Theorems have any bearing on people? Here is one way of arguing the case. Either I am consistent or I am inconsistent. (The latter is much more likely, but for completeness' sake, I consider both possibilities.) If I am consistent, then there are two cases. (1) The "low-fidelity" case: my self-understanding is below a certain critical point. In this case, I am incomplete by hypothesis. (2) The "high-fidelity" case: My self-understanding has reached the critical point where a metaphorical analogue of the limitative Theorems does apply, so my self-understanding undermines itself in a G�delian way, and I am incomplete for that reason. Cases (1) and (2) are predicated on my being 100 per cent consistent-a very unlikely state of affairs. More likely is that I am inconsistent-but that's worse, for then inside me there are contradictions, and how can I ever understand that?
...
...
Science is often criticized as being too "Western" or "dualistic"�that is, being permeated by the dichotomy between subject and object, or observer and observed.

Which brings us back to Lorenz Transformations....

_________________
Magesteff
A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead

Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2003 4:50 pm

Display posts from previous: Sort by:

Page 1 of 1 [1 Post]

Forum index » Archive » Archive: Chasing the Wish » CTW: General/Updates

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
You cannot post calendar events in this forum