Flat and Round

--- By J. L. S.
------ For the Grice Club.

IN OUR DISCUSSION ON THE ANALOG-DIGITAL DISTINCTION AND HOW IT bears on Grice´s Grand Project ("Grice´s Grand Plan", this blog), Kramer comments on various points on the afore-mentioned distinction (Don´t you find it otiose when people use "afore-mentioned", such a mouthful, within the same clause, almost, as the so-called "afore-mentioned thing -- in this case, the analog-digital distinction, already a mouthful, has been mentioned in the first place. I supose it´s another anti-Gricean disabuse that we only engage in because as Griceans we flout them.

Anyway, Kramer writes that, as it were I have it just right when he writes,

"I agree ((with JL)) that the mind is both analog and digital at the same time."

where perhaps "same" is metaphorical?

"In general, I think we remember analogously
and process digitally."

Good. He then expands on his machinery (Kalkulator Krameri) that, if I understood his "Intructions" alright, tests a computer (with answerless questions) to the point that the machine gives up with "I don´t know."

He notes that the analogy here is with antibodies in immunological theory:

He writes:

I imagined memories as molecules
floating in the cortex ((with)) the brain
releas((ing)) little retriever thingies
that "look for" the appropriate memories
the way antibodies ((finding --
sometimes without looking for them)) matching
antigens. This immunesque style of
recall is an analog process ((and)) it
works for me as a way of distinguishing
((analogues)) and processes.

This is all very good. Two further thoughts:

When I was studying, for this "state-run" project, the philosophy of mind vis a vis important discoveries in the sciences (or something) we were all scared and terrified at the idea that perhaps "Connexionism" in the philosophy of mind was THE ANSWER, and that we don´t HOLD analog representations, only "digital" versions, 100010100101000001111010010100100100010101000001001010001001 of them!

The second thought is the genial idea by Kramer to digitalise life -- (from a vinyl disc, he notes -- which as Grice notes, could well be square -- this blog) and play it in my computer!

So the third thought is Grice on rational/reasonable. And this may relate to Ian Cargan Dengler´s advice to me that I use a continuum Zeno-paradox-proof from 0 to 1, rather than integers. Grice seems to be saying, Gr01 ("Aspects of Reason", precis, this blog) that

"irrational" is DIGITAL.

Either you are rational or you are not. When he speaks like that he _scares_ me. It means he has the key to those _things_!

On the other hand,

"unreasonable" is ANALOG.

It is a "gradual", or "variable" I think he has it, notion. This irritates me slightly because it is the same Latin root, "ratio". So how come one derivative ("rational" is a matter of yes/no) while the other is a matter of Dawkins knows what (I am a fan of "The God Dellusion" by Dawkins and use "Dawkins" to mean things.

I think Grice would say that "rational" -- and then again "irrational" -- are "flat" things.

Since I was once reminded -- at a book club I belong -- of the flat-round distinction made by Forster in Aspects of the Novel -- I use _his_ wordings (We were reading the Argentine novel by the English author, Susan Wilkinson, "Sebastian´s Pride", which I had chosen as read-of-the-month. And a lady said, "I love your choices, JL, but next, can you think a novel with round characters, instead?". She was a prof. of English at the local uni, so I was sort of taken aback. "Forster, you see", she added -- and then I thought it was time for another nice cuppa char.