5/24/2023 0 Comments Meta memes![]() Note that the OP does not say anything whatsoever about specific maps and territories, but rather reasons in the generic realm of universal truths. If the meta-level is sufficiently expressive (with appropriate reflective capacity), then you are all set. Since it does not depend in any way on the kinds maps and territories you encounter, it can be established beforehand. Meta-level is pure logical reasoning over the universal truths. How did you ascertain there is no need for higher levels beforehand Hence "The Tao that can be said is not the true Tao." So describing this clearly can be a pain. Which is to say, maps aren't the basis of thinking. How are you modeling it? Ah, oops, groundless recursion. It's just an issue when you try to encapsulate that process in a model. That's what makes the roadmap potentially useful in the first place. You can follow the map/territory correspondence just fine. If I point at a nearby road, and then point at a roadmap and say "That road over there is this line", there's no problem. …which is in fact part of what you're doing by noticing this glitch.īut the problem vanishes when you stop insisting that the map include everything. Then going "up" a layer of abstraction lands you right where you started. The standard way around this conundrum is to fold self-reference into your map, instead of just recursion. It's more a display of the limitations of maps in the maps' terms. Then you can ask whether the modeled map/territory correspondence is accurate, which creates another layer of modeling, ad infinitum. Maps can't model the map/territory correspondence unless they also create a simulated territory. ![]() ![]() How could we reliably detect their operation on our thoughts, if any? What are some differentiating features of meta-memes, or meta-antimemes? Perhaps a better way of approaching this would be: However, the human language may not be equipped to pose such questions in a concise way. This seems too esoteric to be a basis for further discussion. Is this proof and/or meta-proof of existence and/or meta-existence of meta-memes, or meta-antimemes? If we rephrase the question to be as general as possible: Do we then need a 'meta-proof of existence'?Īnd is not 'existence' itself some kind of meme, as all expressible ideas are? It's difficult to say, since 'proof of existence' is itself a meme/antimeme/memeplex/antimemeplex. Is this proof of existence of meta-memes, or meta-antimemes? There does not seem to be a way to avoid this problem as long as humans think in words, or any other system of symbols.īut this does seem to impinge on some aspect of human cognition that suggest there exist higher levels of abstraction beyond what is commonly perceived or discussed. Thus implying the possibility of a meta-meta-rationality and so on unto infinity.Ī corresponding possibility is that certain assertions or logical arguments may be invalid/undecidable on one level, but valid/decidable on another level, a meta-validity if you will. As ''The map is not the territory' is also a map' is also a map. This seems to lead to a credible argument, advanced elsewhere, that the meta-rational is a higher level of abstraction.īut this then seems to lead to infinite regress. So although on at least one level of abstraction 'The map is not the territory' is useful insight, on another level, it may be meaningless and/or undecidable. The idea that the map is not the territory seems to be itself a map, due to the fact that all words are written in symbolic form, and symbols by definition cannot be the territory itself.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |