Colin,
Thanks for expressing "my ideas" so eloquently.
However... (of course!)
I may interspace some remarks (as usual) on details. (I am more lenient on
the oldies (do rely on them less) because our epistemic enrichment could
work only on the 'timely' level of comprehension (buildability-up on the
'then' cognitive inventory and mind-function skills). Don't expect from me
to be too appreciative on our present level though. We try, as much as we
can.
*
I will insert initials.
John M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Colin Geoffrey Hales" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 3:56 AM
Subject: Re: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...


>
> "David Nyman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
> >> If grandmother asks for recalling the main difference between Plato and
> Aristotle's theories of matter, I would just say that in Plato, the
> visible (observable, measurable) realm is taken as appearances or
> shadows related to a deeper unknown reality.
>
> BTW Plato followed Heraclitus, who was already onto this.
>
> Surely Plato's view more astute model to assemble an understanding of the
> natural world than the assumption of Aristotlian/atomism thinking... that
> the universe is made of chunky bits of stuff that literally are the
> appearances we get and our descriptions of it....furthemore
>
> The arisotlian view is clearly anatomically untenable anyway! If the
> universe was literally made of appearances then when we opened up a brain
> we would see them. We do not. What we see is the brain in the act of
> delivering appearances. No 'appearance' of a brain is in any direct
> relation to the appearances it delivers to us in the 1st person. Ergo the
> structure and the appearances are not the same thing or at least are
> validly explored on that basis.
[JM]:
I will come back to that darn "structure".  With a 'better look' we may
"see" more, just as we see more today than when that legendary king had the
brain of his philosopher sliced up to see all those smart ideas). The modern
neurologists claim to see it 'all' - including the term: "somehow".
>
> This is empirical proof that at least in this small piece of thought
> Plato's position was correct and Aristotle is just plain wrong. And Kant
> too. The noumenon is most definitely real and scientifically
> tractible.(see below)
>
> The practical upshot of this is that the universe does not,  for example,
> have atoms in it. It is made of some underlying structure behaving
> "atomly" within our appearances. It is only us that insist on making it a
> 'thing'.
[JM]:
After 1/2 century pioneering in making a new type of polymers: I agree.
I use a slightly different wording, but for the same idea.
You use "structure" - which is a term of our (present) imaging of what we do
not see. I don't go that far, don't assign our 'structureal' image to the
still unknown. Our present mental capability may be immature to categorize
it.
"Our structure" comes from a mathematical evaluation of that (partial) image
we so far exerienced within that limited model we pretend to observe.
>
>That structure also behaves 'neutrino-ly' outside the scope of
> our direct perceptions (qualia). The appearances (qualia) are likewise
> delivered as behaviour of the very same structure. Plato's position
> unifies matter and qualia as different behaviours of the same underlying
> structure. So simple and obvious and practical and fits the evidence.
>
> >
> > A question from grandma:
> >
> > Since this deeper, unknown reality must forever be inaccessible to our
> direct probing, I agree when you suggest that this may better be thought
> of as theology, or at least metaphysics.
>
> Juicy stuff here:
>
> "Since this deeper, unknown reality must forever be inaccessible to our
> direct probing"
>
> The words 'direct probing' assume that indeed we are at some point
> "directly probing". If you can justify any account that we directly probe
> (whatever that means!) anything I'd like to see it!
[JM]:
Amen. Me too.
>
>I would hold that the
> 'apprearances' we have and the 'underlying structure' are on an _equal_
> epistemological footing in that
>
> a) Depictions of regularity in appearances
> b) Depictions of structure of a putative underlying natural world
>
> both have equal access to qualia as evidence. It is the underlying
> structure that delivers qualia into the brain. The two descriptive realms:
> appearances and structure are on an equal footing and qualia unifies them
> into a consistent set. The 'evidence', qualia, is evidence for BOTH
> domains. Whatever the structure is, it must simultaneously a) deliver
> qualia and all the rest of the structure in the universe and b) deliver
> the contents of qualia (appearances) that result in our correlations of
> appearances that we think of as empirical laws.
[JM]:
Maybe reverse: we THINK about a structure because the 'qualia' reaching our
mind suggest such ideas. We are 'probing' the unkowable with the little we
derived in our interpretation and 'think' it is the "truth".
>
> Therefore we have not one but 2 scientifically accessible realms of
> scientific description of the natural world:
>
> 1) Statistics that are correlation of appearances
> 2) Statistics that are depictions of structure
[JM]:
We have some limited features to think about - in ways as our existing level
of mentality allows. We compose them into our "model of the (physical?)
world and count the qualia we so far identified. This we call STATISTIX.
Increase the amount of features: the 'counting' will occur differently. It
shows in any statistically evaluable feature over historical epoques.
Statistics is the beloved occupation of the mathematically impaired minds
(OOPS - no offense meant, I esteem them) because it allows beautiful
mathematics.
>
> Qualia are produced by 1) and enable 2) and tie both descriptions
> intimately together as a consistent set. Currently we call 1) science and
> slag off at 2) as 'mere metaphysics' or theology. This is just soooo
> wrong! Indeed at least in a linguistic sense 2) is physics and 1) is
> meta-physics (about it)! :-)
>
> So...
>
> "Since this deeper, unknown reality must forever be inaccessible to our
> direct probing"
>
> ...is quite correct, but that does not stop us doing valid science on the
> structure! Put another way this limitation in access does not justify
> calling attempts to formulate theories of the structure as non-science.
[JM]:
Are you comfortable to call 'science' the (in?)direct observation of
figments we derive from interpretations of the unknown? No matter how many
DID agree in the past, I like to keep it open to generate a different way of
thinking We cannot crowl out from our (mental) skin and speculations are
limited to what epistemy offered so far. Yet I want to keep it open for more
and better, not regulate it quantitatively into an equational "science" of
the limited.
>
> Can you see how riddled with historical baggage our thinking is, how
> biased our language is? This crazy situation has been going on for 2500
> years. enough already!
>
> cheers
> colin hales
>
[JM]:
Thanks, Colin, you seem to start at the old Greeks, they based their
thinking on earlier thoughts, think of those who did not even leave written
documents (Dravidians, etc.) so our epistemic enrichment (from the 'old
Ape') is just a continuous process with origins back to those of living
creatures at all.
I see our job to make ONE step applicable to our present mental make-up.
cheers

John Mikes
>
>


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to