[FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs

[glen ☣]

Well, to be clear, my comment was intended to agree with Vladimyr's point that I kinda like being _deluded_.  When you finally remove all the meaning from the math notation and just manipulate the markings, it can be very hypnotic.  What would otherwise seem to be meaningless syntax takes on a meaning of its own, regardless of any _symbolic_ intent.  (We _can_ coherently ask the question "What is it like to be a zombie".)  We can hold both [non-]Platonic positions, because that state depends on the context.  Remove all the a priori symbolism, and I become a Platonist.  Ground even a single term and I become a constructivist.

As for being in the zone socially, I disagree, though I don't particularly care about any jargonal co-option of the term.  During hearty arguments, mostly with religious people, I definitely lose myself in exactly the same way I lose myself after that 3rd mile when running.  I have no illusions that my zone is in any way shared by the people I'm arguing with, though ... no more than I think you and I share internal constructs mediated by the word "blue".

I enjoyed Eric's comment on representation precisely because I can't quite buy into the idea that we rely so heavily on "symbolic reference".  It relies way too much on the assumption that what goes on in our head is anything like what goes on out there in the ambience.


On 02/21/2017 12:46 PM, Robert Wall wrote:
> Why I bring this up at all is that Whitehead thinks that what integrates these two modes into the whole of what we perceive is *Symbolic Reference*. Symbolic reference is kind of like how we tag bits of our real-world immersion for building a largely symbolic but sustainable--for us individually--worldview. Most time these symbolic references are provided to us--inculcated--by others like with a religion or by our parents.  Most are satisfied with that. In your friend's case, I believe it is possible that y' all were unsettling--challenging--his worldview ... or, he challenging yours. 
> 
> Flow is not likely to be aroused in a social context. [...]
> 
> Is mathematics invented or discovered?  This is a perennial topic that arises within my philosophy group.  It never really gets resolved, but how could it be?   It is the ultimate of symbolic reference systems because of its precision in predicting the way the world manifests itself to our perception. [...]
> 
> As I often do, I  kind of resonate with Vladimyr's thought, which you included in your post. It is very Csikszentmihalyi-est. I do think that simulations can lure us into thinking that they are an exact dynamic facsimile of the reality which they try to abstract into an analytical model.  There are all kinds of things about simulations that can lead us astray. [...]
> 
> But, as Vladimyr muses, maybe this is the best we can do ... and symbolic reference is what nature served up for us to cope, concerning what we are perceiving.  But, as with all smart systems, a smart entity will always try to challenge and refine those symbols with continuous feedback--FLOW.  However, in the larger scheme of things, it really doesn't matter if mathematics was invented or discovered. I mean, where did the concept of a hammer come from? 🤔

-- 
☣ glen