From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!caen!garbo.ucc.umass.edu!dime!chelm.cs.umass.edu!yodaiken Mon Dec  9 10:47:53 EST 1991
Article 1847 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!caen!garbo.ucc.umass.edu!dime!chelm.cs.umass.edu!yodaiken
>From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Carlson's claim that dialectic cannot be formalized
Message-ID: <40141@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: 4 Dec 91 13:41:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: dime.40141
References: <40026@dime.cs.umass.edu> <a6sDcB1w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM>
Sender: news@dime.cs.umass.edu
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Lines: 20

In article <a6sDcB1w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM> rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson) writes:
>VY:
>> Don't have an opinion on the motives of analytic theorists. Resolving
>> contradictions is something that should be familiar to every scientist
>> and automobile mechanic. Perhaps I'm just too dense, but when I read
>> the "dialectical" arguments of such lumineries as Hofstadter  the point
>> eludes me.  
>
>Why does it elude you?  Too simple?  Wrong tack?  Too
>complicated?

No content. One of the components of learning is constructing or
recognizing patterns. One of the ways in which complex systems are
constructed,both by humans and by nature, is by connecting a lot of
simpler systems. Sometimes we get more insight out of studying systems
as coherent wholes, rather than as collections of parts (e.g., slugs as
slugs instead of slugs as molecule clumps).  Sometimes we perceive
contradictions or randomness where further understanding will show us 
consistency or patterns.
Did I miss something?


