Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.pagan,talk.philosophy.misc,comp.ai.philosophy,alt.consciousness,alt.paranormal.channeling,alt.consciousness.mysticism
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!yeshua.marcam.com!news.kei.com!ub!galileo.cc.rochester.edu!prodigal.psych.rochester.edu!stevens
From: stevens@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu (Greg Stevens)
Subject: Re: Randomness is a human concept (was Re: Time is a human concept)
Message-ID: <1994Nov4.212525.22792@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>
Sender: news@galileo.cc.rochester.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: prodigal.psych.rochester.edu
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York
References: <367dn4$ls@euskadi.idbsu.edu>  <1994Oct13.135253.21576@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> <38qhnm$117@whitbeck.ncl.ac.uk> <1994Oct30.160017.676@inca.comlab.ox.ac.uk> <baverill.4.2EB72A96@dormnet.stu1.uconn.edu> <1994Nov4.120419.7601@inca.comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 94 21:25:25 GMT
Lines: 90

>Benjamin Averill (baverill@dormnet.stu1.uconn.edu) wrote:
>: In article <1994Oct30.160017.676@inca.comlab.ox.ac.uk> dutton@teaching.physics.ox.ac.uk (Adrian P Dutton) writes:
>: >From: dutton@teaching.physics.ox.ac.uk (Adrian P Dutton)
>: >Subject: Re: Randomness is a human concept (was Re: Time is a human concept)
>: >Date: 30 Oct 94 15:52:49 GMT
>: >n4521558 (Rob.Smith@ncl.ac.uk) wrote:
>: >: In article <1994Oct13.135253.21576@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>,
>: >stevens@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu (Greg Stevens) says:

>: >: >I think it's funny that you say RANDOMNESS is a human concept, when I
>: >: >would have intuitively stated it as PATTERN is a human concept (pattern
>: >: >being the opposite of randomness).

>: >: Can you honestly say that you can find something truly random, or
>: >: are 'random' processes governed by very complex non-linear but
>: >: deterministic laws?

>: >Have you ever heard of Quantum Mechanics ?!?  Do the words uncertancy 
>: >principal ring any bells? Quantum processes are inhearently undeterministic.

>: Undeterministic and randomness are not the same thing.  The outcome of 
>: something could be impossible to know, yet still be fixed.

>I was using the word undeterministic in terms of physics. Deterministic is
>used as a word to describe a system that behaves *Exactly* the same way 
>given *Exactly* the same initial conditions. It does not depend on whether it
>is humanly possible to make any predictions. As an aside note, many posters
>have mentioned chaos theory. Chaotic equations *are* deterministic. The problem
>is,  it is impossible to know *exactly* the initial conditions, and in a 
>chaotic system, very small differences in initial conditions lead to very large
>differences in outcome, so chaotic stystems are inhearently unpredictable.

Since people have found it apt to quote this thread-monster back to my initial
comment, I will take this time to point out that you all missed my point
when I stated that PATTERN seemed closer to the most "human" of the concepts
and "randomness" closer to the metaphysical reality (whatever the f that is).

Let me clarify.

All of you are talking about things following rules which, although it has
been aptly pointed out are human constructions, have some metaphysical
reality.  Many are insisting that all events can be accounted for by
regular (even if probabilistic) rules that have this metaphysical
reality.

Implicit in these arguments is the notion that we as observers can somehow
set outselves external to the world we are studying and gain priviledged
objective access to understanding what these metaphysical rules are.  It
is a manifestation of the typical dualism between object and observer
which simply ISN'T, metaphysically (to use a term meaten to death in this
group), the case.

A lot of science holds that we can find objective metaphysical truths 
about the universe because we can measure the world without effecting
it.  That is why Heissenberg's work was such a blow, and yet on the
macrological scale of things, the concept is often ignored -- we exist
within the medium of reality and it makes no sense whatsoever to talk
about measurements we can make of the world EXTERIOR to us -- we play a
vital rold in all observation.

What we understand about biology and neurology indicates that a primary
function of our structure is to organize a wide variety of inputs into
a form we can use for our survival.  In  a way our neural nets are
performing massive dimensional reduction algorithms, but specifically
delineated to extract and interpret information WITH RESPECT TO US AS
ORGANISMS AND OUR SURVIVAL.  As such, we construct our perceptions in
a way that is intrinsically tied to our OWN structure, not some objective
structure of the universe.

Therefore, I would argue, the PATTERN and STRUCTURE and RULES we find
are phenomena reflecting human interpretation MUCH MORE than the 
VARIENCE in pattern, the discovered LACK of structures, and EXCEPTIONS
to rules.  If our biological tendancy is to find PATTERN, then it is
when our attempts to do so are FOILED that we learn something about
the universe.

In Bateson's terms, biology is on the look-out for difference, specifically
the difference that makes a difference to US.  It isn't on the look-out
for pattern per se.  Pattern simply tells us something about what we 
understand, failures of pattern -- INCLUDING RANDOMNESS -- tell us about
something in the universe that is still interesting and new, some structure
about our inputs aside from what we have imposed with our biology.

If I had the energy I could put this all in a small example with edge-
detection in the retina, but I will go now....

Greg Stevens

stevens@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu

