Roger and Rick have lured me into this discussion, but I'm afraid I only have time for a drive-by potshot. Roger cited Casti's intriguing paper "The Outer Limits," which argues that nature might still be infinitely knowable even if our mathematical models for it are not.
This optimism seems arrogant to me. Goedel and Heisenberg didn't set out to devise theories that explain most of the cosmos while leaving some secrets intact. They set out to know everything, and the theories themselves pushed back.
Furthermore, it's not that the incompleteness theorem and uncertainty principle rebuke scientists for trying to nail down the humanistic unknowns on the timeworn Two Cultures checklist (art, morality, the soul). They're way less generous. They say, "I'm not gonna tell you whether that theorem is true" and "I'm not gonna tell you the spin of that electron."
More to the point, real-world tests such as the Bell experiment prove indeterminate theories like quantum mechanics are a better fit for our world than their deterministic competition. Present-day physicists believe the universe is slippery not because they distrust current theories, but because they do trust them.
This is why I have no interest in the supernatural. The natural is quite mysterious enough for me.
jon
________________
Re-Collection: Art, New Media, and Social Memory
http://re-collection.net
"Read it if you want to prevail"--Bruce Sterling
_______________________________________________
Yasmin_discussions mailing list
Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
SBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to. In the page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and password in the fields found further down the page.
HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on the unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set Digest Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
If you prefer to read the posts on a blog go to http://yasminlist.blogspot.com/
Saturday, October 18, 2014
[Yasmin_discussions] postdigital spirituality
Thoughts about spirituality at the art-technology-science interface are explored in my book The Future of Art in a Postdigital Age: From Hellenistic to Hebraic Consciousness (Intellect Books/University of Chicago Press) with a section on the "LIghtsOROT: Spiritual Dimensions of the Electronic Age" exhibition that I curated with the late Otto Peine at MIT Center for Advanced Visual Studies. Also look at my blog "Creating a Spiritual Blog of Your Life" at http://bibleblogyourlife.blogspot.com
Professor Mel Alexenberg
Author of The Future of Art in a Postdigital Age: From Hellenistic to Hebraic Consciousness and Educating Artists for the Future: Learning at the Intersections of Art, Science, Technology, and Culture (both published by Intellect Books/University of Chicago Press) and in Hebrew: Dialogic Art in a Digital World: Judaism and Contemporary Art.
Former art professor, Columbia University, head of the art department, Pratt Institute, research fellow, MIT Center for Advanced Visual Studies, and professor at universities and art colleges in Israel
melalexenberg@yahoo.com, http://www.melalexenberg.com
_______________________________________________
Yasmin_discussions mailing list
Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
SBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to. In the page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and password in the fields found further down the page.
HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on the unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set Digest Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
If you prefer to read the posts on a blog go to http://yasminlist.blogspot.com/
Professor Mel Alexenberg
Author of The Future of Art in a Postdigital Age: From Hellenistic to Hebraic Consciousness and Educating Artists for the Future: Learning at the Intersections of Art, Science, Technology, and Culture (both published by Intellect Books/University of Chicago Press) and in Hebrew: Dialogic Art in a Digital World: Judaism and Contemporary Art.
Former art professor, Columbia University, head of the art department, Pratt Institute, research fellow, MIT Center for Advanced Visual Studies, and professor at universities and art colleges in Israel
melalexenberg@yahoo.com, http://www.melalexenberg.com
_______________________________________________
Yasmin_discussions mailing list
Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
SBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to. In the page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and password in the fields found further down the page.
HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on the unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set Digest Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
If you prefer to read the posts on a blog go to http://yasminlist.blogspot.com/
Friday, October 17, 2014
Re: [Yasmin_discussions] The Plight of the Supernatural ...
Hello Yasminers,
I have followed this discussion thread with great interest and want to jump in. The question about whether art-science collaborations contain an element of pseudo-science jumped out at me as did its corollary, does art-science contain an element of pseudo-art. On the former, I suspect yes, but am in less of a position to judge; on the latter, I must answer yes. I've seen it over the years of making and later curating new media art , and even now as I'm teaching a course about culture and technology alongside professors of engineering, business, and music.
In that class, we've been hearing from visiting lecturers and talking a lot about the Maker movement (I know, they're not scientists, but certainly technologists, a parallel collaboration). Some proponents of the Maker phenomenon invoke "art" as what separates them from traditional craftspeople or engineers or tinkerers - but too often that art takes the form of a technology project that includes extra elements of frivolous decor and/or a non-commercial/non-useful function (a giant hydraulic metal octopus that shoots flames into the sky from each tentacle while the head bobs up and down.) So, art=decorative+useless. There may be some merit to this equation, and play can be important in art, but those are not the questions being asked by creations like this; in fact there are few questions being put forward, little critique, and no engagement with or moving forward the discourse of art. We're back to the old idea of art whose primary function is pleasing the senses and the mo!
re the better; spectacle society.
Now this sounds pretty ungenerous, but I'm reacting more to the big claims than to the pieces themselves (which I enjoy.) I've also been re-reading C.P. Snow's paper about the "two cultures" and re-examining by own disciplinary biases. But this brings up an element of the supernatural that hasn't been covered here so much yet; not as false knowledge, but as spectacle. For as many people today who believe in the supernatural (ala religion, etc.) there seem to be an equal number (but not always the same crowd) who produce and enjoy the supernatural in entertainment culture - from Twilight movies to Game of Thrones to video games. These are not pernicious in the same way (by positing falsehoods as truth) but they are in a different way, by providing the circuses part of "bread and circuses." I note that supernatural themed entertainment is much more pervasive now than at other moments in popular culture and I wonder if there is any correlation to be made (stressful times=more !
escapism?) I don't know, but the effect can be said to be a distraction from real, pressing social and environmental issues - which entertainment culture does not always avoid with as much fervor as supernatural escapism does. Again, not to sound overly critical since I enjoy Game of Thrones very much and since the best speculative fiction provides important thought-experiments, but that's not entirely what's going on now.
Of course, none of this is to say that all or even most art-technology-science collaborations are inherently flawed, but an "element"? Sure. To me it speaks more of the continuing effort to overcome the two-cultures problem; the necessity of deep disciplinary knowledge and the necessity of crossing disciplinary boundaries in the great quest.
Richard Rinehart
---------------------
Director
Samek Art Museum
Bucknell University
---------------------
Lewisburg, PA, 17837
570-577-3213
http://museum.blogs.bucknell.edu
>
_______________________________________________
Yasmin_discussions mailing list
Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
SBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to. In the page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and password in the fields found further down the page.
HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on the unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set Digest Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
If you prefer to read the posts on a blog go to http://yasminlist.blogspot.com/
I have followed this discussion thread with great interest and want to jump in. The question about whether art-science collaborations contain an element of pseudo-science jumped out at me as did its corollary, does art-science contain an element of pseudo-art. On the former, I suspect yes, but am in less of a position to judge; on the latter, I must answer yes. I've seen it over the years of making and later curating new media art , and even now as I'm teaching a course about culture and technology alongside professors of engineering, business, and music.
In that class, we've been hearing from visiting lecturers and talking a lot about the Maker movement (I know, they're not scientists, but certainly technologists, a parallel collaboration). Some proponents of the Maker phenomenon invoke "art" as what separates them from traditional craftspeople or engineers or tinkerers - but too often that art takes the form of a technology project that includes extra elements of frivolous decor and/or a non-commercial/non-useful function (a giant hydraulic metal octopus that shoots flames into the sky from each tentacle while the head bobs up and down.) So, art=decorative+useless. There may be some merit to this equation, and play can be important in art, but those are not the questions being asked by creations like this; in fact there are few questions being put forward, little critique, and no engagement with or moving forward the discourse of art. We're back to the old idea of art whose primary function is pleasing the senses and the mo!
re the better; spectacle society.
Now this sounds pretty ungenerous, but I'm reacting more to the big claims than to the pieces themselves (which I enjoy.) I've also been re-reading C.P. Snow's paper about the "two cultures" and re-examining by own disciplinary biases. But this brings up an element of the supernatural that hasn't been covered here so much yet; not as false knowledge, but as spectacle. For as many people today who believe in the supernatural (ala religion, etc.) there seem to be an equal number (but not always the same crowd) who produce and enjoy the supernatural in entertainment culture - from Twilight movies to Game of Thrones to video games. These are not pernicious in the same way (by positing falsehoods as truth) but they are in a different way, by providing the circuses part of "bread and circuses." I note that supernatural themed entertainment is much more pervasive now than at other moments in popular culture and I wonder if there is any correlation to be made (stressful times=more !
escapism?) I don't know, but the effect can be said to be a distraction from real, pressing social and environmental issues - which entertainment culture does not always avoid with as much fervor as supernatural escapism does. Again, not to sound overly critical since I enjoy Game of Thrones very much and since the best speculative fiction provides important thought-experiments, but that's not entirely what's going on now.
Of course, none of this is to say that all or even most art-technology-science collaborations are inherently flawed, but an "element"? Sure. To me it speaks more of the continuing effort to overcome the two-cultures problem; the necessity of deep disciplinary knowledge and the necessity of crossing disciplinary boundaries in the great quest.
Richard Rinehart
---------------------
Director
Samek Art Museum
Bucknell University
---------------------
Lewisburg, PA, 17837
570-577-3213
http://museum.blogs.bucknell.edu
>
_______________________________________________
Yasmin_discussions mailing list
Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
SBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to. In the page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and password in the fields found further down the page.
HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on the unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set Digest Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
If you prefer to read the posts on a blog go to http://yasminlist.blogspot.com/
Re: [Yasmin_discussions] The Plight of the Supernatural ...
hello again yasminers
Roger,
I sorry if I was unclear. I never meant to imply that scientists aren't comfortable with uncertainty inside their own domain. The problem from an outsider's perspective appears to be an intolerance towards any unknowables outside scientific domains of expertise; frequently equating unknowable/unprovable with False if the terminology is scientifically distasteful. I brought up the unknowns in science as particular example of a universal problem that exists in all fields of human activity - even slightly quirky ones. You are right, Goedel's theorem is great example of the fundamental limits of knowledge in particular because his work intersects points of the artistic and scientific interest.
Your friend, Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond joking comment about pseudo-art illuminated instantly why, even though I don't believe nor am I interested the subjects usually grouped under the heading "pseudo-science" the term is so disturbing. Most of twentieth century was an ongoing (and unfinished) battle over what constituted art and non-art and who serves as the gatekeeper of art's considerable social capital; a symbolically violent battle understood as such among artists even before Bourdieu coined the term. By placing the word "pseudo-science" in a discourse of the arts, his clever inversion clarified the symbolic violence latent in the term.
Jean-Marc's comment was so insightful, I googled him and would encourage other Yasminers to do the same. Everything I found was in French. but he critiques more clearly than myself the blind spots in science education and its misunderstanding of the evolutionary history of ideas. I'll try to translate an excerpt from this article La science souffre d'un manque de culture I left the word decultured untranslated. I think that even if it is not an english word, decultured says something important about the larger misunderstanding between science and the arts that decontextualized does not. Roger please let me know about any errors in the translation.
Leur formation disciplinaire est souvent très poussée, mais déculturée. La plupart des scientifiques aujourd'hui ne connaissent pas les travaux fondateurs de leur domaine, ce qui est quasiment unique dans les formations intellectuelles. Quand vous témoignez à de jeunes philosophes, de jeunes artistes ou de jeunes musiciens qu'un jeune physicien aujourd'hui n'a pas lu une seule page de Newton ou de Galilée, ni même d'Einstein, ils sont absolument sidérés.
L'implantation des lettres ou des arts est suffisamment ancienne pour que nous enseignions les textes anciens de Racine, Shakespeare, Virgile ou Homère. Mais la science a été prise d'un tel vertige de modernité que les scientifiques s'imaginent qu'il suffit de dire "théorème de Pythagore" ou "loi de Galilée", et de payer ainsi leur dû aux grand hommes. Les scientifiques ont tendance à croire qu'une fois une découverte faite, c'est pour toujours, et qu'il n'est pas nécessaire de s'interroger sur les conditions historiques, philosophiques, voire politiques de ces découvertes, ni sur l'évolution (passée et future !) de leur signification.
La faiblesse, voire l'absence de culture des scientifiques s'explique en fait très simplement : cet aspect ne compte ni dans leur formation, ni dans leur évaluation.
Their scientific training is often very advanced, but decultured [decontextualized]. Most scientists today do not know the work of founders in their field, which is almost unique in higher education. When you explain to young philosophers, young artists and young musicians that a young physicist today has not read a single page of Galileo or Newton or even Einstein, they are absolutely stunned.
In the humanities, students read and analyse foundational texts like Racine, Shakespeare, Virgil or Homer. But science has gotten so dazzled by modernity that scientists think that it is enough to say "Pythagorean theorem" or "law of Galileo", and think that is all the respect due to great men. Scientists tend to believe that once a discovery is made, it is forever unchanged. It is not necessary to question its philosophical historical conditions, nor look at the politics of such discoveries, nor to examine the evolution (past and future) of its meaning.
The weakness or absence of a culture [historical context] in science can be explained very simply: this aspect is excluded from both scientific training and evaluation.
As someone who has read more than one page of Newton, Jean-Marc explained why it is so exasperating to listen to scientists talk about SCIENCE in ways that would be impossible if they had even a clue about the messy ingredients in their beloved soup. Try reading ten pages of Newton, you will never make fun of another "new ager" again. I'm not criticizing Newton here, he taught me as much about being creative as Cezanne. Reading Newton teach how messy creative/scientific thinking can be in practice. Jean-Marc really nailed a practical, logical explanation for the religious and dogmatic tone that often, although not always, creeps into the discourse of scientists toward other fields of inquiry and science's own historical development.
Which segues into Margaret Wertheim's thoughts on both the history of science and the discourse between natural and supernatural. I hope she posts her essay. I look forward to reading it along with all the posts that will follow. It is this pleasure that makes the yasmin email conversation so fertile.
work too hard, think too much and have way too much fun,
Aprille
Aprille Best GLOVER
22, la grand rue
41800 Lavardin
France
+33 (0)6 47 95 28 76
blog (english et français) http://le-grand-livre.com
www.aprille.info (english)
www.aprille.fr(français)
_______________________________________________
Yasmin_discussions mailing list
Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
SBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to. In the page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and password in the fields found further down the page.
HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on the unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set Digest Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
If you prefer to read the posts on a blog go to http://yasminlist.blogspot.com/
Roger,
I sorry if I was unclear. I never meant to imply that scientists aren't comfortable with uncertainty inside their own domain. The problem from an outsider's perspective appears to be an intolerance towards any unknowables outside scientific domains of expertise; frequently equating unknowable/unprovable with False if the terminology is scientifically distasteful. I brought up the unknowns in science as particular example of a universal problem that exists in all fields of human activity - even slightly quirky ones. You are right, Goedel's theorem is great example of the fundamental limits of knowledge in particular because his work intersects points of the artistic and scientific interest.
Your friend, Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond joking comment about pseudo-art illuminated instantly why, even though I don't believe nor am I interested the subjects usually grouped under the heading "pseudo-science" the term is so disturbing. Most of twentieth century was an ongoing (and unfinished) battle over what constituted art and non-art and who serves as the gatekeeper of art's considerable social capital; a symbolically violent battle understood as such among artists even before Bourdieu coined the term. By placing the word "pseudo-science" in a discourse of the arts, his clever inversion clarified the symbolic violence latent in the term.
Jean-Marc's comment was so insightful, I googled him and would encourage other Yasminers to do the same. Everything I found was in French. but he critiques more clearly than myself the blind spots in science education and its misunderstanding of the evolutionary history of ideas. I'll try to translate an excerpt from this article La science souffre d'un manque de culture I left the word decultured untranslated. I think that even if it is not an english word, decultured says something important about the larger misunderstanding between science and the arts that decontextualized does not. Roger please let me know about any errors in the translation.
Leur formation disciplinaire est souvent très poussée, mais déculturée. La plupart des scientifiques aujourd'hui ne connaissent pas les travaux fondateurs de leur domaine, ce qui est quasiment unique dans les formations intellectuelles. Quand vous témoignez à de jeunes philosophes, de jeunes artistes ou de jeunes musiciens qu'un jeune physicien aujourd'hui n'a pas lu une seule page de Newton ou de Galilée, ni même d'Einstein, ils sont absolument sidérés.
L'implantation des lettres ou des arts est suffisamment ancienne pour que nous enseignions les textes anciens de Racine, Shakespeare, Virgile ou Homère. Mais la science a été prise d'un tel vertige de modernité que les scientifiques s'imaginent qu'il suffit de dire "théorème de Pythagore" ou "loi de Galilée", et de payer ainsi leur dû aux grand hommes. Les scientifiques ont tendance à croire qu'une fois une découverte faite, c'est pour toujours, et qu'il n'est pas nécessaire de s'interroger sur les conditions historiques, philosophiques, voire politiques de ces découvertes, ni sur l'évolution (passée et future !) de leur signification.
La faiblesse, voire l'absence de culture des scientifiques s'explique en fait très simplement : cet aspect ne compte ni dans leur formation, ni dans leur évaluation.
Their scientific training is often very advanced, but decultured [decontextualized]. Most scientists today do not know the work of founders in their field, which is almost unique in higher education. When you explain to young philosophers, young artists and young musicians that a young physicist today has not read a single page of Galileo or Newton or even Einstein, they are absolutely stunned.
In the humanities, students read and analyse foundational texts like Racine, Shakespeare, Virgil or Homer. But science has gotten so dazzled by modernity that scientists think that it is enough to say "Pythagorean theorem" or "law of Galileo", and think that is all the respect due to great men. Scientists tend to believe that once a discovery is made, it is forever unchanged. It is not necessary to question its philosophical historical conditions, nor look at the politics of such discoveries, nor to examine the evolution (past and future) of its meaning.
The weakness or absence of a culture [historical context] in science can be explained very simply: this aspect is excluded from both scientific training and evaluation.
As someone who has read more than one page of Newton, Jean-Marc explained why it is so exasperating to listen to scientists talk about SCIENCE in ways that would be impossible if they had even a clue about the messy ingredients in their beloved soup. Try reading ten pages of Newton, you will never make fun of another "new ager" again. I'm not criticizing Newton here, he taught me as much about being creative as Cezanne. Reading Newton teach how messy creative/scientific thinking can be in practice. Jean-Marc really nailed a practical, logical explanation for the religious and dogmatic tone that often, although not always, creeps into the discourse of scientists toward other fields of inquiry and science's own historical development.
Which segues into Margaret Wertheim's thoughts on both the history of science and the discourse between natural and supernatural. I hope she posts her essay. I look forward to reading it along with all the posts that will follow. It is this pleasure that makes the yasmin email conversation so fertile.
work too hard, think too much and have way too much fun,
Aprille
Aprille Best GLOVER
22, la grand rue
41800 Lavardin
France
+33 (0)6 47 95 28 76
blog (english et français) http://le-grand-livre.com
www.aprille.info (english)
www.aprille.fr(français)
_______________________________________________
Yasmin_discussions mailing list
Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
SBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to. In the page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and password in the fields found further down the page.
HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on the unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set Digest Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
If you prefer to read the posts on a blog go to http://yasminlist.blogspot.com/
Re: [Yasmin_discussions] The Plight of the Supernatural ...
This might be slightly tangential to the topic at hand, but I wanted to respond to Andres' comment regarding the assessment of relative quality in music without the use of the scientific method. This struck close to home, since it is in my area of expertise. Andres wrote:
"I would argue that the hip hop group Public Enemy is far superior to the hip hop group Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch. Keeping to music, I think it is also not controversial that Mozart is superior to Salieri. I think these are "truths" that one can arrive at outside of the scientific method. Does this mean that one couldn't use the scientific method to prove these points? No, I think one could though it might be difficult (do you use popularity? the consensus of music critics?) as any criteria could change over time (I think an historical perspective is crucial for such truisms). Music, art and literature can really impact people and it seems as if this emotional impact is being utilized to justify the supernatural."
While perhaps not invoking the "scientific method" per se, I think there is a fairly clear and objective way to make qualitative comparisons of music (or art, or literature) without depending on the tastes of music critics or relative popularity. In both cases you cite above, a music theorist could provide a set of criteria that demonstrates a greater degree originality, sophisticated use of materials, and application of technical craft in the work of Mozart which is lacking in the more derivative and less inventive work by Salieri (similar criteria could be applied to demonstrate Public Enemy's qualitative superiority to Marky Mark). A historical perspective might uncover different criteria within each genre, but these are primarily surface features, as the fundamental elements are the same.
All to say that even in something as elusive as music, such concepts as "truth" and "beauty" may be evaluated by an analytical approach similar to the scientific method---no need to invoke supernatural gifts, muses, or the hand of God behind the creation of great works of art. I don't think this objective understanding takes anything away from the music any more than a knowledge of optics detracts from the beauty of a rainbow (to reference Keats).
(Sorry if this got a little off-topic!)
Joe
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Joseph Klein, DMus
Distinguished Teaching Professor
Chair, Division of Composition Studies
University of North Texas College of Music
Joseph.Klein@unt.edu
http://www.music.unt.edu/comp/josephklein
________________________________________
From: yasmin_discussions-bounces@estia.media.uoa.gr <yasmin_discussions-bounces@estia.media.uoa.gr> on behalf of Andres Collazo <acollazo@caltech.edu>
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 3:02 PM
To: yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
Subject: [Yasmin_discussions] Introduction and opening statement
Hello everyone. I'm happy to be participating in this discussion. A little
bit about myself. I am a scientist and Director of the Biological Imaging
Facility at Caltech in Pasadena, California. I have a Ph.D. in Zoology from
U. C. Berkeley where I worked on the evolution of development in a family
of amphibians. Currently my lab studies the development of the inner ear at
the cellular and molecular levels to better understand the causes of
newborn hearing loss. The overarching goal of my research program is to
push the limits of light microscopy to study how proteins function in as
close to in vivo conditions as possible. Obviously I am far more familiar
with the Science than the art side of things though I am looking forward
to learning a great deal from this discussion.
As to my statement I want to raise the only point that I ever found vaguely
compelling in regards to the supernatural. It was an argument from a
Catholic medieval studies professor, at my undergraduate institution, about
alternate philosophical frameworks. I, of course, am a huge proponent of
the scientific method being the best (only) philosophical framework for
understanding the natural world. Are there other "truths" that can be
revealed by alternate philosophical methods? This Catholic professor I
spoke of argued yes and his examples used truism of art, music and
literature. I will use updated examples of true statements that can be
arrived at without using the scientific method. I would argue that the hip
hop group Public Enemy is far superior to the hip hop group Marky Mark and
the Funky Bunch. Keeping to music, I think it is also not controversial
that Mozart is superior to Salieri. I think these are "truths" that one can
arrive at outside of the scientific method. Does this mean that one
couldn't use the scientific method to prove these points? No, I think one
could though it might be difficult (do you use popularity? the consensus of
music critics?) as any criteria could change over time (I think an
historical perspective is crucial for such truisms). Music, art and
literature can really impact people and it seems as if this emotional
impact is being utilized to justify the supernatural.
This is my first time posting on Yasmin and I wish to thank the organizers
for inviting me to participate.
--
Andres Collazo, Ph.D.
Director, Biological Imaging Facility
Beckman Institute
California Institute of Technology
_______________________________________________
Yasmin_discussions mailing list
Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
SBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to. In the page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and password in the fields found further down the page.
HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on the unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set Digest Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
If you prefer to read the posts on a blog go to http://yasminlist.blogspot.com/
________________________________________
From: yasmin_discussions-bounces@estia.media.uoa.gr <yasmin_discussions-bounces@estia.media.uoa.gr> on behalf of roger malina <rmalina@alum.mit.edu>
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 10:34 PM
To: YASMIN DISCUSSIONS
Subject: Re: [Yasmin_discussions] The Plight of the Supernatural ...
aprille, glenn, martha, lilian and several other yasminers
As a scientist ( physics then astrophysics) I am very comortable
of unknowables that are developed within science and mathematics
the most obvious of these is goedel's theorem in math and i have lived
all my life with the understanding that certain things in the universe
are unknowable- eg beyond the event horizon in general relativity
eg you cant know even theoretically about the internal stucture
of a black hole (or before the big bang) because signals cant
get out- you can know the mass and charge, angular momentum
of a black hole but
not about much more ( the famous 'no hair' problem)
yeah i know that stephen hawkin has been nibbling away at this
in complexity theory ( not my field) we understand that we cannot
predict in detail the future state of a complex system derived from
the interaction rules between the components- because certain
properties are 'emergent"
I found this interesting article by John Casti of the Santa Fe Institute
on The Outer Limits: In Search of the "Unknowable" in Science
http://www.santafe.edu/media/workingpapers/96-01-001.pdf
Casti talks about a number of unknowables such as Alan Turing's
Halting Problem.,
interestingly he talks about the Heiseberg uncertainty principal
which i had thought argues that one cannot know to infinite precision
both the location and velocity of a quantum particle- Casti argues
this might be a mathematical limit to understanding not a physical limit
he discusses at some length whether some things are fundamentally
"uncomputable" - we recently argued at length with mathematician
and computer artist frieder nake who feels strongly that many
pheonena are theoretically uncomputable
he describes the problem as one of mapping either mathemical models or
computer models on to the natural world
i am very comfortable
with the idea that certain things about the world
are supernatural in the sense that they can not be modelled either
with mathematics or computer models= or are theoretically unobservable
such as the interior structure of a black hole
of course this use of the word super natural is not the common one
and could be misleading
like paul i dont think pseudo science enters into this discussion
but i must admit Lilian has got me thinking about pseudo art
my friend and physics colleague jean marc levy leblond indeed
would argue that most art science is pseudo art !!
roger malina
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:13 AM, aprille best glover
<aprille@aprille.net> wrote:
> Dear Yasminers,
>
> I'm usually a happy lurker on this mailing list but for whatever reason this discussion has got my hackles up.
>
> If you love and care about science it is easy to be lulled into forgetting that Science has two intertwined histories. One is a beautiful quest for knowledge using a method of reasoning that over time leads to deep insights into the nature of our universe. This is the one we talk about most of the time. The other is a secular religion that worships a historical-social conception of technological progress and power - knowledge being a particularly potent form of power. This is history we would like forget or at least ignore.
>
> One of those histories gave up Darwin. The other gave us Social Darwinist who measured skulls to scientifically prove that European Men were "more intelligent" than women or their colonial subjects and created human zoos right up until WWII for scientifically curious public. The Social Darwinists are not isolated incident but part of reoccurring historical pattern that stretches back at least to the Renaissance.
>
> I having been working art project in which I have been doing a lot of reading from European historical record. This whole discussion thread reads like Church fathers discussing heterodoxy. And yes this discussion also reads like many 18th and 19th scientific journals that I plowed through filled with culturally biased pseudo-science alongside real research about the natural world.
>
> I don't believe in ghosts and gods, prayer, miracles, eternal life, predestination, faith-healing, exorcism, burned witches, winged humanoids, sin, punishment, heaven, hell, voodoo either. Unfortunately Science is riddled with its own superstitions not the least of which is desperation for certainty. It easy to forget in the euphoria during periods of technological progress like today that in reality it has taken centuries of work by some of the greatest minds ever to understand how little we actually know.
>
> For example how little we know about even basic material processes. Look at the Standard model in physics. In order to make the equation work and explain the universe requires the inferred existence of something on the order of 68.3% dark energy and 26.8% dark matter Realistically, we can only measure a small portion of the rest. Forget biology, we don't even understand completely how cancer works much less the brain. Neuroscience, although exciting, is in its infancy, the number and complexity of connections in the brain being orders of magnitude larger than the number of atoms in the known universe. You can quibble with me about using wikipedia as a easy source or percentages and exact numbers but that doesn't add a drop to the small sum of human knowledge. When Physics the HARDEST of the sciences can only possibly measure around 5% of the universe isn't time for some humbleness in the face of reality?.
>
> I believe that eventually we will, with the scientific method, discover those answers, but that is a belief. It is a belief every bit as superstitions and illogical in its own way as those of ghosts and gods. The universe may be filled with black swans of all sorts that may mean the scientific project itself is a fool's quest. Let us hope for better.
>
> There is also another uncomfortable truth lurking here. Most of the major problems we face as humans, ranging from global warming, environmental degradation to still constant threat of nuclear war arose from the superstitions of science not from the superstitions of ghost hunters and UFO quacks. Those problems will need science to fix. Yet how can scientists speak with credibility about these problems, if they refuse to knowledge the elephant in the room? Attacking the relatively harmless, if illogical, beliefs of others without acknowledging the consequences of your own illogical beliefs isn't just inconsistent, it could now potentially threaten our ability to survive as a species.
>
> I don't believe that those posting in this discussion are ignorant neo-Social Darwinists, or lobbyists for the weapons and petrochemical industries either. I believe this discussion is meant in good faith. Faith here is a key word. However the way scientists generally learn the history of Science contributes both to scientific progress and to a certain groupthink. The bulk of the history of Science is resides in nasty blind alleys of cultural prejudice which science majors are rarely taught about or are taught in a way that minimize the impact on the triumphant march of scientific progress (now there is a fairytale.) Unfortunately that groupthink often makes it difficult for scientists to understand how the rest of the world sees them as a group. Even how their rhetorical methods actively discourage many rational people from accepting any or certain parts of the good scientific evidence available. If there is any point in an artist who cares about science contributing in a discussion like Yasmine, it is because artists do not approach the history of ideas from that same blinkered perspective. Our blinkers are entirely different, but that is another discussion.
>
> Thanks for your attention to such a long, heated post.
>
> work too hard, think too much and have way too much fun,
> Aprille
>
> Aprille Best GLOVER
> 22, la grand rue
> 41800 Lavardin
> France
> +33 (0)6 47 95 28 76
>
> blog (english et français) http://le-grand-livre.com
>
> www.aprille.info (english)
> www.aprille.fr(français)
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Yasmin_discussions mailing list
> Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
> http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
>
> Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
>
> SBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to. In the page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and password in the fields found further down the page.
> HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on the unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
> TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set Digest Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
> If you prefer to read the posts on a blog go to http://yasminlist.blogspot.com/
--
Roger F Malina
wondering what all the buzz is about
creative disturbances
Is in Dallas right now
for very very urgent things phone/text me me
+1-510-853-2007
url: artscilab.utdallas.edu
blog: malina.diatrope.com
Disturbances coming: http://creativedisturbance.org/
_______________________________________________
Yasmin_discussions mailing list
Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
SBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to. In the page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and password in the fields found further down the page.
HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on the unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set Digest Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
If you prefer to read the posts on a blog go to http://yasminlist.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
Yasmin_discussions mailing list
Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
SBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to. In the page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and password in the fields found further down the page.
HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on the unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set Digest Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
If you prefer to read the posts on a blog go to http://yasminlist.blogspot.com/
"I would argue that the hip hop group Public Enemy is far superior to the hip hop group Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch. Keeping to music, I think it is also not controversial that Mozart is superior to Salieri. I think these are "truths" that one can arrive at outside of the scientific method. Does this mean that one couldn't use the scientific method to prove these points? No, I think one could though it might be difficult (do you use popularity? the consensus of music critics?) as any criteria could change over time (I think an historical perspective is crucial for such truisms). Music, art and literature can really impact people and it seems as if this emotional impact is being utilized to justify the supernatural."
While perhaps not invoking the "scientific method" per se, I think there is a fairly clear and objective way to make qualitative comparisons of music (or art, or literature) without depending on the tastes of music critics or relative popularity. In both cases you cite above, a music theorist could provide a set of criteria that demonstrates a greater degree originality, sophisticated use of materials, and application of technical craft in the work of Mozart which is lacking in the more derivative and less inventive work by Salieri (similar criteria could be applied to demonstrate Public Enemy's qualitative superiority to Marky Mark). A historical perspective might uncover different criteria within each genre, but these are primarily surface features, as the fundamental elements are the same.
All to say that even in something as elusive as music, such concepts as "truth" and "beauty" may be evaluated by an analytical approach similar to the scientific method---no need to invoke supernatural gifts, muses, or the hand of God behind the creation of great works of art. I don't think this objective understanding takes anything away from the music any more than a knowledge of optics detracts from the beauty of a rainbow (to reference Keats).
(Sorry if this got a little off-topic!)
Joe
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Joseph Klein, DMus
Distinguished Teaching Professor
Chair, Division of Composition Studies
University of North Texas College of Music
Joseph.Klein@unt.edu
http://www.music.unt.edu/comp/josephklein
________________________________________
From: yasmin_discussions-bounces@estia.media.uoa.gr <yasmin_discussions-bounces@estia.media.uoa.gr> on behalf of Andres Collazo <acollazo@caltech.edu>
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 3:02 PM
To: yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
Subject: [Yasmin_discussions] Introduction and opening statement
Hello everyone. I'm happy to be participating in this discussion. A little
bit about myself. I am a scientist and Director of the Biological Imaging
Facility at Caltech in Pasadena, California. I have a Ph.D. in Zoology from
U. C. Berkeley where I worked on the evolution of development in a family
of amphibians. Currently my lab studies the development of the inner ear at
the cellular and molecular levels to better understand the causes of
newborn hearing loss. The overarching goal of my research program is to
push the limits of light microscopy to study how proteins function in as
close to in vivo conditions as possible. Obviously I am far more familiar
with the Science than the art side of things though I am looking forward
to learning a great deal from this discussion.
As to my statement I want to raise the only point that I ever found vaguely
compelling in regards to the supernatural. It was an argument from a
Catholic medieval studies professor, at my undergraduate institution, about
alternate philosophical frameworks. I, of course, am a huge proponent of
the scientific method being the best (only) philosophical framework for
understanding the natural world. Are there other "truths" that can be
revealed by alternate philosophical methods? This Catholic professor I
spoke of argued yes and his examples used truism of art, music and
literature. I will use updated examples of true statements that can be
arrived at without using the scientific method. I would argue that the hip
hop group Public Enemy is far superior to the hip hop group Marky Mark and
the Funky Bunch. Keeping to music, I think it is also not controversial
that Mozart is superior to Salieri. I think these are "truths" that one can
arrive at outside of the scientific method. Does this mean that one
couldn't use the scientific method to prove these points? No, I think one
could though it might be difficult (do you use popularity? the consensus of
music critics?) as any criteria could change over time (I think an
historical perspective is crucial for such truisms). Music, art and
literature can really impact people and it seems as if this emotional
impact is being utilized to justify the supernatural.
This is my first time posting on Yasmin and I wish to thank the organizers
for inviting me to participate.
--
Andres Collazo, Ph.D.
Director, Biological Imaging Facility
Beckman Institute
California Institute of Technology
_______________________________________________
Yasmin_discussions mailing list
Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
SBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to. In the page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and password in the fields found further down the page.
HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on the unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set Digest Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
If you prefer to read the posts on a blog go to http://yasminlist.blogspot.com/
________________________________________
From: yasmin_discussions-bounces@estia.media.uoa.gr <yasmin_discussions-bounces@estia.media.uoa.gr> on behalf of roger malina <rmalina@alum.mit.edu>
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 10:34 PM
To: YASMIN DISCUSSIONS
Subject: Re: [Yasmin_discussions] The Plight of the Supernatural ...
aprille, glenn, martha, lilian and several other yasminers
As a scientist ( physics then astrophysics) I am very comortable
of unknowables that are developed within science and mathematics
the most obvious of these is goedel's theorem in math and i have lived
all my life with the understanding that certain things in the universe
are unknowable- eg beyond the event horizon in general relativity
eg you cant know even theoretically about the internal stucture
of a black hole (or before the big bang) because signals cant
get out- you can know the mass and charge, angular momentum
of a black hole but
not about much more ( the famous 'no hair' problem)
yeah i know that stephen hawkin has been nibbling away at this
in complexity theory ( not my field) we understand that we cannot
predict in detail the future state of a complex system derived from
the interaction rules between the components- because certain
properties are 'emergent"
I found this interesting article by John Casti of the Santa Fe Institute
on The Outer Limits: In Search of the "Unknowable" in Science
http://www.santafe.edu/media/workingpapers/96-01-001.pdf
Casti talks about a number of unknowables such as Alan Turing's
Halting Problem.,
interestingly he talks about the Heiseberg uncertainty principal
which i had thought argues that one cannot know to infinite precision
both the location and velocity of a quantum particle- Casti argues
this might be a mathematical limit to understanding not a physical limit
he discusses at some length whether some things are fundamentally
"uncomputable" - we recently argued at length with mathematician
and computer artist frieder nake who feels strongly that many
pheonena are theoretically uncomputable
he describes the problem as one of mapping either mathemical models or
computer models on to the natural world
i am very comfortable
with the idea that certain things about the world
are supernatural in the sense that they can not be modelled either
with mathematics or computer models= or are theoretically unobservable
such as the interior structure of a black hole
of course this use of the word super natural is not the common one
and could be misleading
like paul i dont think pseudo science enters into this discussion
but i must admit Lilian has got me thinking about pseudo art
my friend and physics colleague jean marc levy leblond indeed
would argue that most art science is pseudo art !!
roger malina
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:13 AM, aprille best glover
<aprille@aprille.net> wrote:
> Dear Yasminers,
>
> I'm usually a happy lurker on this mailing list but for whatever reason this discussion has got my hackles up.
>
> If you love and care about science it is easy to be lulled into forgetting that Science has two intertwined histories. One is a beautiful quest for knowledge using a method of reasoning that over time leads to deep insights into the nature of our universe. This is the one we talk about most of the time. The other is a secular religion that worships a historical-social conception of technological progress and power - knowledge being a particularly potent form of power. This is history we would like forget or at least ignore.
>
> One of those histories gave up Darwin. The other gave us Social Darwinist who measured skulls to scientifically prove that European Men were "more intelligent" than women or their colonial subjects and created human zoos right up until WWII for scientifically curious public. The Social Darwinists are not isolated incident but part of reoccurring historical pattern that stretches back at least to the Renaissance.
>
> I having been working art project in which I have been doing a lot of reading from European historical record. This whole discussion thread reads like Church fathers discussing heterodoxy. And yes this discussion also reads like many 18th and 19th scientific journals that I plowed through filled with culturally biased pseudo-science alongside real research about the natural world.
>
> I don't believe in ghosts and gods, prayer, miracles, eternal life, predestination, faith-healing, exorcism, burned witches, winged humanoids, sin, punishment, heaven, hell, voodoo either. Unfortunately Science is riddled with its own superstitions not the least of which is desperation for certainty. It easy to forget in the euphoria during periods of technological progress like today that in reality it has taken centuries of work by some of the greatest minds ever to understand how little we actually know.
>
> For example how little we know about even basic material processes. Look at the Standard model in physics. In order to make the equation work and explain the universe requires the inferred existence of something on the order of 68.3% dark energy and 26.8% dark matter Realistically, we can only measure a small portion of the rest. Forget biology, we don't even understand completely how cancer works much less the brain. Neuroscience, although exciting, is in its infancy, the number and complexity of connections in the brain being orders of magnitude larger than the number of atoms in the known universe. You can quibble with me about using wikipedia as a easy source or percentages and exact numbers but that doesn't add a drop to the small sum of human knowledge. When Physics the HARDEST of the sciences can only possibly measure around 5% of the universe isn't time for some humbleness in the face of reality?.
>
> I believe that eventually we will, with the scientific method, discover those answers, but that is a belief. It is a belief every bit as superstitions and illogical in its own way as those of ghosts and gods. The universe may be filled with black swans of all sorts that may mean the scientific project itself is a fool's quest. Let us hope for better.
>
> There is also another uncomfortable truth lurking here. Most of the major problems we face as humans, ranging from global warming, environmental degradation to still constant threat of nuclear war arose from the superstitions of science not from the superstitions of ghost hunters and UFO quacks. Those problems will need science to fix. Yet how can scientists speak with credibility about these problems, if they refuse to knowledge the elephant in the room? Attacking the relatively harmless, if illogical, beliefs of others without acknowledging the consequences of your own illogical beliefs isn't just inconsistent, it could now potentially threaten our ability to survive as a species.
>
> I don't believe that those posting in this discussion are ignorant neo-Social Darwinists, or lobbyists for the weapons and petrochemical industries either. I believe this discussion is meant in good faith. Faith here is a key word. However the way scientists generally learn the history of Science contributes both to scientific progress and to a certain groupthink. The bulk of the history of Science is resides in nasty blind alleys of cultural prejudice which science majors are rarely taught about or are taught in a way that minimize the impact on the triumphant march of scientific progress (now there is a fairytale.) Unfortunately that groupthink often makes it difficult for scientists to understand how the rest of the world sees them as a group. Even how their rhetorical methods actively discourage many rational people from accepting any or certain parts of the good scientific evidence available. If there is any point in an artist who cares about science contributing in a discussion like Yasmine, it is because artists do not approach the history of ideas from that same blinkered perspective. Our blinkers are entirely different, but that is another discussion.
>
> Thanks for your attention to such a long, heated post.
>
> work too hard, think too much and have way too much fun,
> Aprille
>
> Aprille Best GLOVER
> 22, la grand rue
> 41800 Lavardin
> France
> +33 (0)6 47 95 28 76
>
> blog (english et français) http://le-grand-livre.com
>
> www.aprille.info (english)
> www.aprille.fr(français)
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Yasmin_discussions mailing list
> Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
> http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
>
> Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
>
> SBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to. In the page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and password in the fields found further down the page.
> HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on the unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
> TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set Digest Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
> If you prefer to read the posts on a blog go to http://yasminlist.blogspot.com/
--
Roger F Malina
wondering what all the buzz is about
creative disturbances
Is in Dallas right now
for very very urgent things phone/text me me
+1-510-853-2007
url: artscilab.utdallas.edu
blog: malina.diatrope.com
Disturbances coming: http://creativedisturbance.org/
_______________________________________________
Yasmin_discussions mailing list
Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
SBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to. In the page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and password in the fields found further down the page.
HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on the unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set Digest Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
If you prefer to read the posts on a blog go to http://yasminlist.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
Yasmin_discussions mailing list
Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
SBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to. In the page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and password in the fields found further down the page.
HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on the unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set Digest Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
If you prefer to read the posts on a blog go to http://yasminlist.blogspot.com/
Thursday, October 16, 2014
Re: [Yasmin_discussions] The Plight of the Supernatural ...
aprille, glenn, martha, lilian and several other yasminers
As a scientist ( physics then astrophysics) I am very comortable
of unknowables that are developed within science and mathematics
the most obvious of these is goedel's theorem in math and i have lived
all my life with the understanding that certain things in the universe
are unknowable- eg beyond the event horizon in general relativity
eg you cant know even theoretically about the internal stucture
of a black hole (or before the big bang) because signals cant
get out- you can know the mass and charge, angular momentum
of a black hole but
not about much more ( the famous 'no hair' problem)
yeah i know that stephen hawkin has been nibbling away at this
in complexity theory ( not my field) we understand that we cannot
predict in detail the future state of a complex system derived from
the interaction rules between the components- because certain
properties are 'emergent"
I found this interesting article by John Casti of the Santa Fe Institute
on The Outer Limits: In Search of the "Unknowable" in Science
http://www.santafe.edu/media/workingpapers/96-01-001.pdf
Casti talks about a number of unknowables such as Alan Turing's
Halting Problem.,
interestingly he talks about the Heiseberg uncertainty principal
which i had thought argues that one cannot know to infinite precision
both the location and velocity of a quantum particle- Casti argues
this might be a mathematical limit to understanding not a physical limit
he discusses at some length whether some things are fundamentally
"uncomputable" - we recently argued at length with mathematician
and computer artist frieder nake who feels strongly that many
pheonena are theoretically uncomputable
he describes the problem as one of mapping either mathemical models or
computer models on to the natural world
i am very comfortable
with the idea that certain things about the world
are supernatural in the sense that they can not be modelled either
with mathematics or computer models= or are theoretically unobservable
such as the interior structure of a black hole
of course this use of the word super natural is not the common one
and could be misleading
like paul i dont think pseudo science enters into this discussion
but i must admit Lilian has got me thinking about pseudo art
my friend and physics colleague jean marc levy leblond indeed
would argue that most art science is pseudo art !!
roger malina
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:13 AM, aprille best glover
<aprille@aprille.net> wrote:
> Dear Yasminers,
>
> I'm usually a happy lurker on this mailing list but for whatever reason this discussion has got my hackles up.
>
> If you love and care about science it is easy to be lulled into forgetting that Science has two intertwined histories. One is a beautiful quest for knowledge using a method of reasoning that over time leads to deep insights into the nature of our universe. This is the one we talk about most of the time. The other is a secular religion that worships a historical-social conception of technological progress and power - knowledge being a particularly potent form of power. This is history we would like forget or at least ignore.
>
> One of those histories gave up Darwin. The other gave us Social Darwinist who measured skulls to scientifically prove that European Men were "more intelligent" than women or their colonial subjects and created human zoos right up until WWII for scientifically curious public. The Social Darwinists are not isolated incident but part of reoccurring historical pattern that stretches back at least to the Renaissance.
>
> I having been working art project in which I have been doing a lot of reading from European historical record. This whole discussion thread reads like Church fathers discussing heterodoxy. And yes this discussion also reads like many 18th and 19th scientific journals that I plowed through filled with culturally biased pseudo-science alongside real research about the natural world.
>
> I don't believe in ghosts and gods, prayer, miracles, eternal life, predestination, faith-healing, exorcism, burned witches, winged humanoids, sin, punishment, heaven, hell, voodoo either. Unfortunately Science is riddled with its own superstitions not the least of which is desperation for certainty. It easy to forget in the euphoria during periods of technological progress like today that in reality it has taken centuries of work by some of the greatest minds ever to understand how little we actually know.
>
> For example how little we know about even basic material processes. Look at the Standard model in physics. In order to make the equation work and explain the universe requires the inferred existence of something on the order of 68.3% dark energy and 26.8% dark matter Realistically, we can only measure a small portion of the rest. Forget biology, we don't even understand completely how cancer works much less the brain. Neuroscience, although exciting, is in its infancy, the number and complexity of connections in the brain being orders of magnitude larger than the number of atoms in the known universe. You can quibble with me about using wikipedia as a easy source or percentages and exact numbers but that doesn't add a drop to the small sum of human knowledge. When Physics the HARDEST of the sciences can only possibly measure around 5% of the universe isn't time for some humbleness in the face of reality?.
>
> I believe that eventually we will, with the scientific method, discover those answers, but that is a belief. It is a belief every bit as superstitions and illogical in its own way as those of ghosts and gods. The universe may be filled with black swans of all sorts that may mean the scientific project itself is a fool's quest. Let us hope for better.
>
> There is also another uncomfortable truth lurking here. Most of the major problems we face as humans, ranging from global warming, environmental degradation to still constant threat of nuclear war arose from the superstitions of science not from the superstitions of ghost hunters and UFO quacks. Those problems will need science to fix. Yet how can scientists speak with credibility about these problems, if they refuse to knowledge the elephant in the room? Attacking the relatively harmless, if illogical, beliefs of others without acknowledging the consequences of your own illogical beliefs isn't just inconsistent, it could now potentially threaten our ability to survive as a species.
>
> I don't believe that those posting in this discussion are ignorant neo-Social Darwinists, or lobbyists for the weapons and petrochemical industries either. I believe this discussion is meant in good faith. Faith here is a key word. However the way scientists generally learn the history of Science contributes both to scientific progress and to a certain groupthink. The bulk of the history of Science is resides in nasty blind alleys of cultural prejudice which science majors are rarely taught about or are taught in a way that minimize the impact on the triumphant march of scientific progress (now there is a fairytale.) Unfortunately that groupthink often makes it difficult for scientists to understand how the rest of the world sees them as a group. Even how their rhetorical methods actively discourage many rational people from accepting any or certain parts of the good scientific evidence available. If there is any point in an artist who cares about science contributing in a discussion like Yasmine, it is because artists do not approach the history of ideas from that same blinkered perspective. Our blinkers are entirely different, but that is another discussion.
>
> Thanks for your attention to such a long, heated post.
>
> work too hard, think too much and have way too much fun,
> Aprille
>
> Aprille Best GLOVER
> 22, la grand rue
> 41800 Lavardin
> France
> +33 (0)6 47 95 28 76
>
> blog (english et français) http://le-grand-livre.com
>
> www.aprille.info (english)
> www.aprille.fr(français)
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Yasmin_discussions mailing list
> Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
> http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
>
> Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
>
> SBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to. In the page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and password in the fields found further down the page.
> HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on the unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
> TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set Digest Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
> If you prefer to read the posts on a blog go to http://yasminlist.blogspot.com/
--
Roger F Malina
wondering what all the buzz is about
creative disturbances
Is in Dallas right now
for very very urgent things phone/text me me
+1-510-853-2007
url: artscilab.utdallas.edu
blog: malina.diatrope.com
Disturbances coming: http://creativedisturbance.org/
_______________________________________________
Yasmin_discussions mailing list
Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
SBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to. In the page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and password in the fields found further down the page.
HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on the unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set Digest Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
If you prefer to read the posts on a blog go to http://yasminlist.blogspot.com/
[Yasmin_discussions] Opening Statement for Supernatural Discussion, by Margaret Wertheim
Hi All
Let me introduce myself: I'm Margaret Wertheim, a science writer, curator, and author of books on the cultural history of physics, including "Pythagoras' Trousers" a history of the relationship between physics and religion, and "The Pearly Gates of Cyberspace", a history of Western concepts of space from Dante to the Internet. Throughout my career, I've pursued new ways of communicating science to the public. As an outgrowth of this interest, in 2003 I founded the Institute For Figuring, a Los Angeles based nonprofit devoted to "public engagement with the poetic and aesthetic dimensions of science and mathematics". (www.theiff.org.) We're a new kind of organization operating at the intersection of science and art. Through my work with the IFF, I've curated science-based exhibitions for museums and galleries around the world including the Art Center College of Design (Pasadena), the Chicago Cultural Center, the Hayward Gallery (London), the Science Gallery (Dublin), University of Southern California (Los Angeles), and the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History (Washington D.C.). Our Crochet Coral Reef project is the perhaps largest participatory science+art endeavor in the world, and has been conducted in a dozen countries including the USA, UK, Australia, Germany, Latvia, and the United Arab Emirates. (www.crochetcoralreef.org). A book on the subject is forthcoming in 2015. I was invited into the discussion by Stephen because of my books above and my ongoing interest in the interface between science and religion.
Here's my Opening Statement
Perhaps one of the most difficult questions in science is what counts as natural and what (if anything) might be considered beyond the laws of science, i.e. literally supernatural. Throughout the seventeenth century the subject was discussed by all the major proponents of the 'scientific revolution'. Descartes famous division between the 'res extensa' (the realm of matter in motion) and the 'res cogitans' (the realm of thoughts, feelings and emotions), was an attempt to get to grips with this question. As Descartes saw it, science could describe matter in motion through empty (Cartesian) space, while all that we now class under the domain of psychology was, he believed, outside the bounds of science. As a Catholic, Descartes was trying to save the phenomenon of the Christian soul (and along with it, a concept of salvation), while at the same time carving out a practical territory for the emerging natural sciences. Descartes, like Newton, insisted that the soul was a real phenomenon existing in a domain beyond the spatio-temporal world - something actually supernatural. But it wasn't just the soul he was saving, it was the very idea of a subjective self - the I that utters its unique viewpoint as we are each doing in this discussion. It wasn't until the eighteenth century that our conception of reality was cleaved in half, giving rise to the view that the realm of the real consists solely of matter in motion.
Mechanism caused a crisis for people of religious persuasion, but what interests me is the crisis it's created in the secular world. We are all inheritors of mechanisms' dilemma: If reality is simply matter in motion, how do we explain subjectivity, the I, the me, the you, that utters opinions, feels love, and is capable of having an argument. Neuroscientists now refer to this as the "hard problem". In the 21st century, with neuroscience, we've taken away the religious context of this debate, but the fundamental problem remains: if we think of 'nature' as purely the domain of matter, then how can we understand the phenomenon of self and subjectivity? I'm not suggesting here that we readopt Cartesian dualist metaphysics; but I do think materialism puts us into an epistemological bind that is creating deep psychological trauma in our society. For those who may be interested, I wrote an essay on this subject for a book that was published by the Royal Society in 2010. The book, called "Seeing Further" (edited by Bill Bryson) was a celebration of the 350th anniversary of the founding of the Royal Society and my essay was about how post-Newtonian metaphysics has left us psychologically at sea. If folk are interested I can post the essay too.
_______________________________________________
Yasmin_discussions mailing list
Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
SBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to. In the page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and password in the fields found further down the page.
HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on the unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set Digest Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
If you prefer to read the posts on a blog go to http://yasminlist.blogspot.com/
Let me introduce myself: I'm Margaret Wertheim, a science writer, curator, and author of books on the cultural history of physics, including "Pythagoras' Trousers" a history of the relationship between physics and religion, and "The Pearly Gates of Cyberspace", a history of Western concepts of space from Dante to the Internet. Throughout my career, I've pursued new ways of communicating science to the public. As an outgrowth of this interest, in 2003 I founded the Institute For Figuring, a Los Angeles based nonprofit devoted to "public engagement with the poetic and aesthetic dimensions of science and mathematics". (www.theiff.org.) We're a new kind of organization operating at the intersection of science and art. Through my work with the IFF, I've curated science-based exhibitions for museums and galleries around the world including the Art Center College of Design (Pasadena), the Chicago Cultural Center, the Hayward Gallery (London), the Science Gallery (Dublin), University of Southern California (Los Angeles), and the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History (Washington D.C.). Our Crochet Coral Reef project is the perhaps largest participatory science+art endeavor in the world, and has been conducted in a dozen countries including the USA, UK, Australia, Germany, Latvia, and the United Arab Emirates. (www.crochetcoralreef.org). A book on the subject is forthcoming in 2015. I was invited into the discussion by Stephen because of my books above and my ongoing interest in the interface between science and religion.
Here's my Opening Statement
Perhaps one of the most difficult questions in science is what counts as natural and what (if anything) might be considered beyond the laws of science, i.e. literally supernatural. Throughout the seventeenth century the subject was discussed by all the major proponents of the 'scientific revolution'. Descartes famous division between the 'res extensa' (the realm of matter in motion) and the 'res cogitans' (the realm of thoughts, feelings and emotions), was an attempt to get to grips with this question. As Descartes saw it, science could describe matter in motion through empty (Cartesian) space, while all that we now class under the domain of psychology was, he believed, outside the bounds of science. As a Catholic, Descartes was trying to save the phenomenon of the Christian soul (and along with it, a concept of salvation), while at the same time carving out a practical territory for the emerging natural sciences. Descartes, like Newton, insisted that the soul was a real phenomenon existing in a domain beyond the spatio-temporal world - something actually supernatural. But it wasn't just the soul he was saving, it was the very idea of a subjective self - the I that utters its unique viewpoint as we are each doing in this discussion. It wasn't until the eighteenth century that our conception of reality was cleaved in half, giving rise to the view that the realm of the real consists solely of matter in motion.
Mechanism caused a crisis for people of religious persuasion, but what interests me is the crisis it's created in the secular world. We are all inheritors of mechanisms' dilemma: If reality is simply matter in motion, how do we explain subjectivity, the I, the me, the you, that utters opinions, feels love, and is capable of having an argument. Neuroscientists now refer to this as the "hard problem". In the 21st century, with neuroscience, we've taken away the religious context of this debate, but the fundamental problem remains: if we think of 'nature' as purely the domain of matter, then how can we understand the phenomenon of self and subjectivity? I'm not suggesting here that we readopt Cartesian dualist metaphysics; but I do think materialism puts us into an epistemological bind that is creating deep psychological trauma in our society. For those who may be interested, I wrote an essay on this subject for a book that was published by the Royal Society in 2010. The book, called "Seeing Further" (edited by Bill Bryson) was a celebration of the 350th anniversary of the founding of the Royal Society and my essay was about how post-Newtonian metaphysics has left us psychologically at sea. If folk are interested I can post the essay too.
_______________________________________________
Yasmin_discussions mailing list
Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
SBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to. In the page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and password in the fields found further down the page.
HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on the unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set Digest Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
If you prefer to read the posts on a blog go to http://yasminlist.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)