Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:

> ASIDE, for the record, dual aspect science (from the previous post).  I)
> APPEARANCE ASPECT. Depictions (statistics) of regularity (correlations of
> agreed 'objects' within) in appearances
> II) STRUCTURE ASPECT. Depictions (Statistics) of structure of an
> underlying natural world based on organisations of one or more posited
> structural primitives.

> Both have equal access to qualia as evidence. Qualia are evidence for
> both. Whatever the structure is, scientists are made of it and it must
> simultaneously a) deliver qualia and all the rest of the structure in the
> universe(II) and b) deliver the contents of qualia (appearances) that
> result in our correlations of appearances that we think of as empirical
> laws(I). This is a complete consistent set of natural laws, none of which
> literally 'are' the universe but are merely 'about' it.

For the record, how would you contrast this with Chalmers' property
dualism and his programme for 'psycho-physical laws'? Presumably his
'conceivability' of structure (ll) without appearance (l) is sheer
'3rd-person cultism' from your perspective. This is where I part
company from him. My conceivability apparatus just can't come up with
this. For me a situation that isn't self-revealing needs a mediator
(little observer) to do the revealing for it, and we know where that
leads...

> Qualia(appearances) are only intractible because we keep insisting on &
> trying to use qualia (appearances, our scientific evidence) to explain
> them! Is it only me that sees that when the scientific evidence system
> (qualia) is applied to collect evidence in favour of a "science of
> qualia", a science of _our evidence system_!!, that the evidence system
> breaks down?

Can you say more about how a structure (ll) science approaches this?

> FYI
> ['unsituated' means that the scientist is, despite the observer dependence
> characterised by quantum mechanics, surgically excised from the universe
> by the demand for an objective view that does not exist. 'Situated'
> science puts the scientist back inside the universe with the studied
> items. Note that science only needs OBJECTIVITY (a behaviour) not a real
> 'objective view' to construct correlations of type I (above). Dual aspect
> science disposes of the cultish need for a delusion of a 3rd person view ]

Yes, this is broadly what I was aiming at with '1st-person primacy',
using words like 'embedded', 'present', etc. - but 'situated' is good,
I'll adopt it.

There's another aspect, which I've been musing about again since my
most recent exchanges with Peter. This is that if one takes seriously
(and I do) 'structural' or 'block' views such as MWI, then it seems to
me that whatever is behaving 'perceivingly', 1st-personally', or
'subjectly' (gawd!) is the gestalt, not any particular abstraction
therefrom. It seems to me that this is necessary to yield from an
infinity of recursively nested structure:

1) The unnameability of the 1st-person (i.e. 'this observer situation')
2) The consequential validity (?) of any probability calculus of
observer situations
3) 'Time' as the tension of structure and gestalt - i.e. sensing
situations dynamically
4) 'Coherent observer histories' - i.e. sensing 'meta-situationally'
(is this an adverb?)

Any thoughts on this?

David

> David Nyman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > Yes, and I despair (almost) of remedying this, even if I knew how. My
> own attempts at linguistic 'clarity' seemed destined only to muddy the
> waters further, especially as I'm really trying to translate from
> personal modes that are often more visual/ kinaesthetic than verbal,
> gestalt than analytic.
>
> I have these very same difficulties and I try my very hardest to use the
> minimal number of most-accessible words in their popular mode. Not always
> successfully...but you have to start somewhere. My origins are as an
> engineer immersed in the natural (electrical) world. Thousands of hours of
> waiting during commissioning, thinking for a couple of decades.... to
> surface and try to describe what you have seen after this...is a
> challenge.
>
> >
> > That said, I rather like your 'adverbial' mode, which I think has also
> cropped up in other contexts (didn't Whitehead attempt something of the
> sort with his process view?) Nominalisation/ reification creates
> conceptual confusions, embedded assumptions spawn others, as in all
> language to do with time, which is already loaded with the assumption of
> experiential dynamism, and hence can do nothing to help explain it.
> >
> ================================================
> ASIDE, for the record, dual aspect science (from the previous post).  I)
> APPEARANCE ASPECT. Depictions (statistics) of regularity (correlations of
> agreed 'objects' within) in appearances
> II) STRUCTURE ASPECT. Depictions (Statistics) of structure of an
> underlying natural world based on organisations of one or more posited
> structural primitives.
>
> Both have equal access to qualia as evidence. Qualia are evidence for
> both. Whatever the structure is, scientists are made of it and it must
> simultaneously a) deliver qualia and all the rest of the structure in the
> universe(II) and b) deliver the contents of qualia (appearances) that
> result in our correlations of appearances that we think of as empirical
> laws(I). This is a complete consistent set of natural laws, none of which
> literally 'are' the universe but are merely 'about' it.
> ================================================
> back to David's words re language...'adverbial' descriptions:
>
> Nicholas Rescher has wrested process thought from the Whitehead
> sequestration of it. Rescher uses the adverbial mode quite convincingly in
> his latest works. Thank goodness...far too much religious/cultish detritus
> smattered throughout the Whitehead camp. They have no right to 'own' the
> process view. I hope those days are over now.
>
> The adverbial depiction is very apt as it stops us being deluded into the
> assumption of 'nouns' and 'things'. In day to day life nouns and things
> are very very useful, but the assumption that just because our language
> has them and we have agreed to their presence in the universe's
> appearance...does not mean that the language tokens are actually
> instantiated!
>
> Adverbial descriptions are far more general in that they easily unify all
> natural world behaviour as a single process that can deal with 'verby
> things' like rainstorms, that are inherently processual and apparent lumpy
> things (like lions) that behave 'nounly'. Qualia naturally fit into this
> idea. There is no thing 'red' in your head. The universe is behaving
> red-ly in your head. NOTE: An ideal object 'red' may be said to exist in
> 'platonia'. But so what! This is about _our_ universe, not some
> abstraction.
>
> > My own hastily contrived usages were an attempt to expose the implicit
> (and hence generally conceptually invisible) holding of the world 'at
> arm's length' by the objectifying effect of 3rd person language, which
> simultaneusly relegates 1st-person to a subsidiary role, to the extent
> that some even feel impelled to deny its existence, or resort to bizarre
> ontolgies in an attempt to 'reintroduce' it. Where McGinn and Chomsky hold
> that it is the analytic/ synthetic modes of language that puts 1st person
> beyond our ability to conceptualise, I feel that the
> unacknowledged consensual projection of an 'objective model' as
> > 'reality' has more to do with it.
> >
> > My belief has been that restoring 1st person to some sort of centrality
> would be part of the antidote, and I haven't yet (quite) lost hope on this
> score. I look forward to the fruits of your own efforts in this regard.
> >
> > David
>
> Your plea has not gone unheard. V.S. Ramachandran said "...the need to
> reconcile the first and third person accounts of the universe...is the
> single most important problem in science." (Phantoms in the Brain .229)
>
> and there's McGinn in 'the mysterious flame' where he makes a convincing
> case for us having a profoundly inadequate view of matter. I agree! I'd
> say there isn't any such 'thing'! :-)
>
> Note Ramachandran is not saying 'physics' or 'neuroscience' or
> 'consciousness studies' is affected but SCIENCE, all of it. He is
> absolutely right. Qualia are our entire source of scientific evidence. We
> have nothing else. They are an appearance (as a measurement supplied to us
> inside our heads by the action of brain material). To say that the
> universe is literally constructed of these appearances is a) illogical and
> b) does not align with the modern empirical evidence of brain material.
>
> To
>
> a) be completely dependent on 1st person data for scientific evidence
> (even though we linguistically extract an apparent objective agreed view
> out of it, without qualia we have no appearances to do that with!)
>
> and
>
> b) demand that this 1st person data be used as evidence on pain of being
> declared 'unscientific'. (If you can't experience it, you are not doing
> science).
>
> and then
>
> c) To believe that the abstractions we get by correlating the appearances
> are structural/causal
>
> and worse then
>
> d) to deny the existence qualia/declare the ficticious third person view
> as the only valid view
>
> in spite of
>
> d) glaring anomalous data presentation in brain material.
>
> is a recipe for a science that I'm not too sure has any other status than
> some sort of "cult of the objective view". Do we really want to have
> historians look back at us and cringe? The dual-aspect penny has to drop
> at some stage.
>
> Qualia(appearances) are only intractible because we keep insisting on &
> trying to use qualia (appearances, our scientific evidence) to explain
> them! Is it only me that sees that when the scientific evidence system
> (qualia) is applied to collect evidence in favour of a "science of
> qualia", a science of _our evidence system_!!, that the evidence system
> breaks down?
>
> If I had to categorise the situation I'd say that science is currently
> "single aspect, unsituated" as opposed to "dual-aspect, situated".
>
> FYI
> ['unsituated' means that the scientist is, despite the observer dependence
> characterised by quantum mechanics, surgically excised from the universe
> by the demand for an objective view that does not exist. 'Situated'
> science puts the scientist back inside the universe with the studied
> items. Note that science only needs OBJECTIVITY (a behaviour) not a real
> 'objective view' to construct correlations of type I (above). Dual aspect
> science disposes of the cultish need for a delusion of a 3rd person view ]
>
> I'd be very interested in the group's view on this. I feel like I'm the
> only one who can see something broken here (science). If anyone can say
> that a dual-aspect approach cannot be used for any other reason than
> dogmatic clinging to the way it is,
>
> a) I'd like to hear it.. (I challenge anyone/everyone to do this. I can't!)
> b) don't we have some breakthough thinking of some sort to be getting on
> with?
>
> Wouldn't it be nice to be part of a solution instead of endless circular
> ruminations that are the problem?
>
> Colin Hales
> p.s. some physicists already are already working in the structure (II)
> aspect... and they don't realise it. We are already doing it! We just
> don;t know when we are.


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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