KARL JASPERS FORUM

TA62 (Mikes)

Commentary 10

WE NEED THE HOLISTIC MEANS OF FORMALIZATION
by Serge Patlavskiy
2 August 2004, posted 7 August 2004

<3e>
As it is accepted in Nonstatanalysis (it is some specific theoretical system or meta-theory; see [1], [2]), the <cognitively independent entity has no immanent properties. During the <process of cognition> the <subject of cognition> enframes some <cognitively independent entity> and transforms it into the <object of cognition> having regarded it as the element of the dissociational (DIS) or the decompositional (DEC) model. Since the properties of the elements of the DIS- and the DEC-model are quite different (see [1], [3], Table 2), therefore the same <cognitively independent entity> being regarded as the element of different models may be treated as having quite different properties. For example, the elements of the one DEC-model are characterized as having the property of entropy additivity. But there is no entropy additivity for the elements of the one DIS-model. And this property of the <absence of the entropy additivity> for the elements of the one DIS-model may be put into the verbal form like: "the total is more than the sum of its parts". But the irony is that to talk about Holism, we must regard many other properties, not only the property of the <absence of entropy additivity>. And it is the main difference between Nonstatanalysis and Gestalt Theory: Nonstatanalysis does not only regard many other "holistic properties", but elaborates specific theoretical modeling that enables to formalize some entity as a Whole (see [1], [2] for the model of an <integrated information system>).

Second, the author correctly characterises <analysis> as the method of studying reductionist models. But I would like to put the whole story on some theoretical footing. I start with introducing of one of the most important notions used in Nonstatanalysis - the notion of <cognitive space>. The very term <cognitive space> means that the <theoretical (knowledge) base of the process of cognition> and the <means of cognition> are in <inverse link> with each other and evolve not separately, but being the elements of some system. E.g., the <device> and the <knowledge how to use it> evolve not separately but in inverse connection, which means that without knowledge we cannot use the device, but without the device our knowledge transforms into a "mental junk". The First basic idea of Nonstatanalysis (see [1]) states that to get a full description of Reality we have to carry on the process of cognition as in the A-, so in the B-type of cognitive space. The A-space's theoretical base of the process of cognition was historically formed on the basis of the human's subjective everyday experience. The B-space's theoretical base is being theoretically constructed with the help of several cognitive paradoxes called the <algorithms of the inter-space's transitions> (see [1] for the cognitive paradoxes). The main assertion of the B-space's theoretical base is the <Postulate on existence of the integrated information system (IIS)>. So, the application of the <method of IIS> makes it possible to formalize a lot of rare, anomalous, non-statistical (non-replicable), complex and consciousness-related phenomena. It is important to mention that during the <process of cognition> it is equally legitimate to regard some <cognitively independent entity> as the element of the DIS- or the DEC-model. It means that it is not the reductionism that is a wrong approach, but inappropriate usage of it. So, I uphold the view that reductionism is an inappropriate approach in consciousness studies, being at the same time enough "appropriate" and useful in Neuroscience and related disciplines. In general, the <analysis> as the method of studying is valid only in the A-space; the <reductionism> as the scientific approach or the ideology of scientific investigation is valid only in the A-space; the <logics> as the collection of the laws of thinking is valid only in the A-type of cognitive space. As to the B-space, everything must be constructed anew, including a new base of notions, a new system of proofs, etc.

<3f>
Really, the reductionist thinking leads to paradoxes. But, as I have found, there are several paradoxes (in my terms - <cognitive paradoxes>) which play crucial role when constructing the B-space's theoretical base (see [1] for the <algorithms of the inter-spatial transitions>). Those several paradoxes are the real golden seeds in the "dunghill" of reductionism and subjective experience in general.

There in no doubt that understanding of Reality we live in requires a new way of thinking. But, as to me, this new way of thinking implies that we have make use of the reductionistic way of thinking and, apart this one, we have to develop some other way, which will be more appropriate when explaining the complex and the consciousness-related phenomena. This conclusion follows from the First basic idea of Nonstatanalysis (mentioned above). In other words, the scientist who wishes to explain Reality in all its complexity must accept the ideology of Multi-ism (see [5]).

<4b>
The Big Bang Theory won't wash. One of the arguments against it is as follows. The case is that any "bang" as the physical process can only take place in some environment; otherwise, it is not a bang as such. But according to the Big Bang Theory, some bang happened in no environment, since only after that bang the environment as such appeared (including the physical vacuum). Alternately, Nonstatanalysis, when explaining Reality, does not require of asking/answering, as I call them, terminal questions like "What was at the beginning of everything?", or "What will be at the end of the times?". I am strongly convinced that the theory that puts and requires of answering the terminal questions is not scientific but rather religious.

<4Ah>
According to Nonstatanalysis the concepts <time> and <space> have their cognitive sense only in the <A-type of cognitive space>. In other words, those concepts both are subjective constructs. he processes formalized in the <B- type of cognitive space> happen in <no-time>, <no-space>. uch is the process of <information propagation> represented by the <inter-system interaction of the integrated information systems> (see [1], [3], Table 3). onsider the case that at some moment of the real present time a supernova star detonates anywhere in the Universe. Due to the inter-system interaction between the IIS{supernova} and the IIS{investigator}, the investigator gets information about the star's detonation immediately (instantaneously, or in no-time) because the state characteristic of the IIS{investigator} changes instantly (see the mentioned above Postulate for the systemic and state characteristics of IIS). But only after the lapse of, e.g., 100 years the 2-nd systemic characteristic of the IIS{supernova} will change so that our eye (or, some device, like radio-telescope) be possible to registry that fact (the supernova's light or radio impulses). With this regard, I state that the theory of relativity cannot be regarded as a valid scientific theory, since Einstein associated the speed of information propagation with the speed of light -- the profoundly incorrect association. Hence, all conclusions concerning the "traveling in time" are nothing but the product of a hectic imagination, which has nothing to do with the real state of affairs. My theoretical system grounds on the supposition that all processes in our Reality are simultaneous in spite of the distances between the places where those processes happen and in spite of the velocities with which the material bodies move. The past and the future are mere illusions. According to Nonstatanalysis, the generation of SPACE-TIME does not require any "BigBangs" -- it happens in the result of the [DIS-DEC] transition when we come from the B- to the A-type of cognitive space during the process of cognition (see [2] for the seven types of inter-models transitions).

<5a>
The difficulties in writing about <complexity> or <complex phenomena> take place because of the absence of the appropriate theoretical models, or, in general -- the means of formalization. So, in Nonstatanalysis the problem of formalization of the <complex systems> solves by using the model of the <integrated information system>, in which the informational complexity keeps under control (see [1], [2] for the Postulate on the IIS' existence).

<6d>
It is said that MIR (Mind Independent Reality) is an oxymoron, since we, as our mind, are all part of the world, nothing can be called independent. As to me, I would prefer to use the term <cognitively independent entity> since to be a part of the world and to be the element of the <scheme of the process of cognition> are quite different things. Any possible <cognitively independent entity> is a part of the world, of our Reality, but it won't be an element of the <scheme of the process of cognition> (see [1], [3], Figure 2) until it is enframed by the <subject of cognition> and transformed into the <object of cognition>.

<8c>
It is said that we are anchored in a reductionistic view and try to think beyond it; that we are at the beginning of this study, we have no vocabulary for the not yet well-identified concepts, not even the ideas are clearly formulated and it will take a lot of effort to develop this field. I must confess that we will always be at the beginning of this study unless we agree on several principal moments of the construction of any scientific theory. As it follows from Nonstatanalysis, a consensus theory of complex phenomena can be constructed (see [4] for "The Open Theory Project").

---------------------------------------------

REFERENCES

[1] "Elaboration of the New Paradigm of Interdisciplinary Investigations", Journal of Conscientiology (ISSN 1520-4049), Volume 1, Number 4, pp. 305-36, 1999 http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00003571/ or at http://www.geocities.com/spatlavskiy, First target article, full illustrated version, Msword formatted.

[2] "The Key Ingredients of a Specific Interdisciplinary Approach to Consciousness" at http://www.geocities.com/spatlavskiy, Second target article, full illustrated version, Msword formatted.

[3] FIGURES&TABLES at http://www.geocities.com/spatlavskiy

[4] http://patlavskiy.012webpages.com

[5] "The Multi-ism" at http://patlavskiy.012webpages.com, section: "Theoretical background".

---------------------------------------------

Serge Patlavskiy, a physicist

Homepage: http://www.geocities.com/spatlavskiy