[Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion

[Wolff-Michael Roth]

... and, quantum physics is right for describing events that we attribute
to quantum particles, protons, photons, electrons, etc. For human size
stuff, we use classical physics because it does pretty well; and when we go
to stellar scale, we don't use quantum physics but general relativity
because these approaches are better suited for describing and theorizing
what we observe :-)

Michael


Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Cognitive Science
MacLaurin Building A567
University of Victoria
Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2
http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>

New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
<https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>*

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth <
wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Andy,
> I am looking at the real movement of the thinking-body (Il'enkov), using a
> pen and making a circle, for example. No abstraction. This is precisely
> what Maxine Sheets-Johnston develops, and the point that she critiques with
> embodiers and and enactivists---they abstract in positing schemas, that are
> somewhere lodged in the mind, whereas life is in movement, real movement,
> not abstracted. Without movement, life does not exist.
>
> Also, an important point. I am talking about *trans*action not *inter*action---in
> the senses of Dewey and Bateson. Transaction is the coming and going in the
> same action that Mikhailov is writing about, and the afferent and efferent
> aspects of an action in the work of Timo Järvilehto. Because of this, any
> form of cognition cannot be located merely in the brain (see also Il'enkov
> on the beginning of any thought at the outside of the thinker, and the
> endpoint of the thought again on the outside of the thinker).
>
> I don't know where this stuff from quantum physics comes in. I am a
> physicist by training, having done my MSc in atomic physics, and so I don't
> see the link to the argument here.
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------
> Applied Cognitive Science
> MacLaurin Building A567
> University of Victoria
> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2
> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>
>
> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
> <https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>*
>
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>
>>    Actually Michael, I think "movement" is an abstraction
>> from contradictions between interactions. For example, I saw
>> that car there a moment ago, now I see it here. The
>> contradiction is cognised as movement. That's why
>> "trajectory" is not a legitimate concept in quantum physics.
>> Hegel expresses this in the very well known aphorism:
>> "contradiction is the root of all movement."
>>
>> https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/
>> hl431.htm#HL2_955
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> Andy Blunden
>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>> On 15/12/2017 9:54 AM, Wolff-Michael Roth wrote:
>> > ... The smallest unit of movement still is
>> > movement, and within it, there is change, so that the different parts
>> are
>> > not the same but themselves in movement. Michael
>> >
>> >
>> > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>