Thanks, Colin, I feel we also agree in your last sentence statement, however I could not decide whether "abstraction" is reductionist model forming or a generalization into wider horizons? Patterns - I feel - are IMO definitely reductive.
that scale-game (40-50 orders of m. down) seems to me valid within the physical explanatory equationalized circumstances - so I scrutinize it (accept it within physics-thinking). It does not refer to 'time' (whichever you prefer). I had the notion that there 'is' only "change" ie. movement and space is a time-coordinate of it, while time is a space-coordinate of it, as long as we think in terrestrially (not even of THIS universe) formed explanations of those figments we conclude upon the latestly primitive instrumental observations in our reductionist science domain. Matter and its 'behavior' is similarly 'concluded' to reflect the 'personal' experiencing of the unknown effects. I am deterred by the semantic direction of 'computing'. If it is Bruno's manipulation of ordinary numbers, I feel OK, but then I feel domains of incompetence. Your "as-if" changes that and I felt lost. Why use a word with 'other' meaning 'as - if'? It is a cheap excuse that we have no better one <G>. Sorry for just "multiplying the words" in this exchange. John M ----- Original Message ----- From: "Colin Hales" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <email@example.com> Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 10:32 PM Subject: RE: Bruno's argument > > John M >> >> Colin, >> the entire discussion is too much for me, I pick some remarks of yours >> and >> ask only about them. I am glad to see that others are also struggling to >> find better and more fitting words... >> (I search for better fitting concepts as well to be expressed by those >> better fitting wods). >> You wrote: >> >... *the rest of the universe that is not 'us' behave in a way with >> respect >> >to us that we label 'physical'...< >> Do I sense a separation "us" versus the 'rest of the universe'? >> I figure it is not a relation between "them" (the rest of the universe) >> and >> "us" (what is this? God's children?) especially after your preceding >> sentence: >> > *whatever the universe is we are part of it, made of it, not separably >> 'in >> > it'.< >> I am looking for distinctive features which help us 'feel' as ourselves >> in >> the total and universal interconnectedness. The "closeness" >> (interrelation?) >> vs a more remote connectivity. >> The 'self', which I do not expropriate for us. >> I have no idea about 'physical', it reflects our age-old ways of >> observing >> whatever was observable with that poor epistemic cognitive inventory our >> ancestors used reducing mindset, observation and explanation to their >> models >> (level of the era). >> > 40 or 50 orders of spatial magnitude down deep, space and matter merge > into > their common organisational parent. There is no 'separateness', we have > never justified that, only assumed it and seen no convincing empirical > evidence other than a failure of science to sort out consciousness because > of the assumption. Whatever the depth of structure, we humans are ALL of > it. > The existence of consciousness (qualia) is proof that the separateness is > virtual (as-if). > > IMO the separation is merely a delineation - a notional boundary > supported > by our perception systems. Just because a perceived boundary is closed > does > not mean that it is not 'open' in some other way down deep in the > structure > of the universe. > > So I guess we are in agreement here. > > >> Then again is the 'as - if' really a computation as in our today's >> vocabulary? Or, if you insist (and Bruno as well, that it IS) is it >> conceivable as our digital process, that embryonic first approach, or we >> may hope to understand later on a higher level (I have no better word for >> it): the analog computation of qualia and meaning? Certainly not the >> Turing >> or Church ways and not on Intel etc. processors. >> >> John M >> > > Not sure I follow you here. All abstracted computing everywhere is > 'as-if'. > None of the input domains of numbers or anything else are ever reified. We > simply declare a place to act like it was there and then behave as if it > were. The results work fine! I'm writing this using exactly that process. > Looks 'as-if' I'm writing a letter no? :-) > > Qualia requires that form of computation executed by the 'natural > domain'... > IMO it's computation..it just doesn't fit neatly into our limited > idealized > mathematics done by creature constructed of it from within it. The natural > world does not have to comply with our limited abstractions, nor does the > apparent existence of an abstraction that seems to act 'as-if' it captures > everything in the natural world. Abstractions are just abstractions... > ultimately it's all expressed as patterns in the stuff of the universe... > > IMO If there's any property intrinsic and implicit to the reality of the > universe (whatever it is, it is it!) then the abstraction throws it away. > > Cheers > Colin hales > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---