The art and science of Serresian spin

To Michel Serres:
- the middle is a point of reflection, a point at which questions - the question - must be asked. In fulfilling the purposes of the health career model:

• bridging the theory - practice gap;
• facilitating holistic practice;
• supporting (personal and group) reflection;
• enabling curriculum development;

- the model's four domains are constantly (re-)visited in turn. Motion is constant. Conception - birth provides that initial impetus. Health status. Life - momentum. Centered on the person the movement is usually self-correcting, seeking balance. Health care. Questions and answers whether whole or in part follow, leaving a trail of care delivered and care planned. A record.

There is definite synergy between our use of the health career model, the dynamic quality and quantity of health and social care and Serres' description of the spinning top:

"The behaviour of the cone or the top is worth analysing. Throw this toy and describe, as Plato did, what happens. It is in movement, this is certain, yet it is stable. It even rests on its point or its pole, the more so as its movement is rapid. All children know this. But its rest is still more paradoxical. The top may move about, by translation, without ever losing its stability. To repeat, it can do so as long as it turns very quickly.


Even better, its axis may lean, take on an inclination, without putting the movement of the whole in too much danger. It may again rock, by nutation, oscillating around a mean location. This very ancient and quite childish machine is marvellously instructive.

First of all, it combines and the movements known and thinkable at the time: rotation, translation, fall, leaning and swaying. An integral model, additive, overcharged, yet simple. Second, and above all, it conjoins in a simple one-off experiment phenomena judged or presumed to be contradictory. It is in movement and rest, it turns and yet does not move, it rocks and is stable. The simplicity of a complexity, first and foremost, an additive machine; a synthesis of contradictions, beyond anything else. Now it may serve as a little model of the world, for a naive simple and local orrery. It quivers, at rest, it moves forward, turning, like the heavens, like the stars." p.28-29.

Michel Serres, (2000) The Birth of Physics, Return of the Model, Turba, turbo. Clinamen Press.


Image source: http://industry.bnet.com/technology/10002785/spinvox-or-someone-like-it-keeps-spinning/

earth, wind, fire, water AND the birth of physics

To begin - the health career model is concerned with space, structures and knowledge (care domains) built around two axes, plus the 'subjects' and 'activities' of health.

How we define and (so) divide space and accord that space salience amid changing contexts is critical to theory, practice and management and the models we subsequently derive:

... The dichotomy does not cut, it defines, it surrounds the closure of a limit, it delineates a boundary. Within the space thus enclosed like meets like. Or rather, conversely, the specific convergance [convenance] or identity, the assembly of the analogous, delimits zones in the disorder which are distinguished from each other. The earth is separated from the waters, air divides from fire. ... p.28.

Michel Serres, (2000) The Birth of Physics, Return of the Model, Turba, turbo. Clinamen Press.

water	earth
air	fire

Birds in paper cages: Cognitive spaces with a little isotropy

In Consciousness Explained, Dennett (1991) provides further support for my belief in the significance of Hodges’ model:

Any of the things you have learned can contribute to any of the things you are currently confronting. That at least is the ideal. This feature is called isotropy by Fodor (1983), the power, as Plato would say, of getting the relevant birds to come, or at least to sing out, whenever they are needed. p.279.

Dennett highlights the fact that we are not isotropic. There are many often comedic instances in which people are slow or fail to fully appraise the significance of new data. This point reinforces the need and role for Hodges’ model providing not just one of Plato’s metaphorical aviaries (with knowledge in the form of the birds), but at least four (five - with spiritual claims to know-ledge).

Next spring I will return to the conceptual spaces paper I started and last saved in September 2008, how time flies! (I do finish stuff eventually - it's not easy this 'part-time' lark). As already posted on W2tQ there is more inspiration if needed. Drawing upon the cognitive science and computing literature the objectives of Peter Gardenfors’ book Conceptual Spaces are made clear from the outset:

'... is to show that a conceptual mode based on geometrical and topological representations deserves at least as much attention in cognitive science as the symbolic and associationistic approaches’. p.2 ....

'This is a book about the geometry of thought. A theory of conceptual spaces will be developed as a particular framework for representing information on the conceptual level.’ p.2.

Further reading:

Jerry A. Fodor (2000) The modularity of mind.

The Frame Problem Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

The domain once removed ...

When we reflect or physically interact with the world it is easiest to effect those things nearest to us. From an early age - stationary - we learn to look and reach.

Sometimes however it is those things that are remote, inaccessible that may be significant and deserving of our attention.

Imagine yourself placed in any of Hodges' knowledge domains as if in a prison cell.

The knocks on two walls clearly come to our attention. There - is another domain that remains off-limits.

This domain is the cognitive blind-spot: which will be yours today?

Image source: Fallingpixel.com

Gardenfors' book - a quote and can that be, surely not ...h2cm?

The title of Peter Gardenfors' book Conceptual Spaces is enough to switch the four lights on in this house. In chapter 1 the conclusion includes -

So what kind of theory is the theory of conceptual spaces? Is it an empirical, normative, computational, psychological, neuroscientific, or linguistic theory? The answer is that the theory of conceptual spaces is used in two ways in this book. On a general level, it is a framework for cognitive representations. .... On a more specific level, the framework of conceptual spaces can then be turned into empirically testable theories or constructive models by filling in specific dimensions with certain geometrical structures, specific measurement, specific connections to other empirical phenomena, and so forth. p.30.

Chapter 5: Semantics gives us figure 5.9 (p.173):

Spatial relations between some abstract lexemes

EXISTENCE LOCATION
POSSESSION OWNERSHIP

Here below is h2cm. I'll leave the explanatory connections to you:

intrapers. sciences
sociology politics

Since 1986 or thereabouts I've been teased by quadtrees, Voronoi tesselations, facet analytic theory, clustering methods et al. and set to believe there's something here that we can use....

On the website I started to explore some of the assumptions that underpin the structure and (what might contribute to) a theory of Hodges' model. The next 'paper' will assume that the reader is familiar with Hodges' model. The focus will be h2cm as a candidate conceptual space with Gardenfors' text as a key and initial source.

The domains, distances, dimensions, data^# it's all there: bar the door....

Many thanks everyone for passing this way - we are now at 10,000+ visitors
^#P.S. I'm actually not sure about the data - that is a real challenge.