> 
> Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
> > Hi,
> > A lot of the dialog below is a mismatch of ideas which indicates that I
> > have underestimated the degree of difficulty to be expected in getting
> the
> If they are different substructures within a further (different)
> structure, they are also unified, in that sense and to that extent.
> 
> The contentious claims here are:
> a) That being multiple instances of the same structure is the only
> way things can be "unified".

No there is only 1 structure. Within it are layers of members of different
classes of substructure. Space, Atoms. etc

> 
> b) Things unified in that sense are devoid of any difference or
> separaration whatsoever.

They are 'difference' and 'separation' are not the same. The appearance of
separation is a physical claim. Imagine an ice-entity living in an ice-cube.
The rest of the ice cube looks like space. The ice entity can move around in
it freely. But they are made of the same (differently organised) stuff.

> 
> > >> Absolutely everything is included in the
> > >> structure. No exceptions. Space, atoms, scientists, qualia. All
> > >> interactions at all 'scales' (scale itself) are all interactions
> between
> > >> different parts of the one structure. To interact at all is to
> interact
> > >> with another part of the structure.
> > >
> > > "another" in what sense ? You just said there is *no* concept
> > > of separation.
> >
> > eg. Matter passes through space. It is interacting with itself. Matter
> > 'looks' separate to space, but deep down its not. The appearance of
> > separateness is how it is presented to us.
> 
> It is entirely possible that they are unified deep down and
> separate on the surface. Separation need not be dismissed
> as appearance.

Q. If you draw a surface boundary around a human what is inside it?

A. If 99,999,999,999,999,999,999 are space. We are the remaining 1 part.

We are all but not there.

There is a fundamental and intrinsically intimate connection between every
single little atomic nuance of us and space we inhabit. The atoms' mobility
within space is an act of cooperation between the atoms and the space they
inhabit through their joint 'parent' structure. There is no actual
separateness, only behavioural separateness.

> 
> > >>  The idea of there being anything else
> > >> ('not' the structure) is meaningless. If there is any 'thing' in the
> > >> structure then the balance of the structure expressed a perfect
> > >> un-thing.
> > >> There is nothing else. That is the coincept I am exploring.
> > >
> > > None of that has anything to do with your claim that there is
> > > a single *type* of structure, and that everything is composed of
> > > recursive combinations of its instances.
> > >
> > > It may be the case that everything is ultimately part of one
> strucutre,
> > > but
> > > that does not imply that everything within the Great Strucutre is
> > > self-similar.
> >
> > The structure is hierarchical layers of organisation only. Members of a
> > layer share morphological invariance to some characteristics of layer
> > layer. Properties are inherited by child layers from paretn layers. All
> > the layers are contained by each other.
> 
> How very c++-ey.
> 
>  Do you have any evidence, or are you appelaing to the comfort
> zone of Sofware Engineers ?

I'm not appealing to any comfort zones. I'm trying to convey ideas in words
that people can follow and relate to. These concepts are well traveled and
explored and the principles can be easily applied to a 'theory of
everything'

> 
> 
> > >> Their presentation bestows intrinsic knowledge as a measurement to
> the
> > >> embedded structure member called the scientist. This is knowledge as
> > >> intrinsic intentionality.
> > >
> > > Are yu saying that qualia are marked by intentionality ?
> > > That would be novel.
> > >
> > > ",, qualia are intrinsic, consciously accessible, NON-INTENTIONAL
> > > features of sense-data and other non-physical phenomenal objects that
> > > are responsible for their phenomenal character."
> > >
> >
> > When we experience redness it is painted onto some'thing'.
> 
> Not if it is adream or hallucination ,

This is simply internally generated qualia derived from memory rather than
sensory feed.

> or the result of pressing your eyeball.

This is a qualia generator mis-generating due to malfunctioning sensory
feed.

Neither of which actually change the argument at all. Machinery embeds
'aboutness', but it doesn't always have to be perfect or even right!
Mechanisms have normal and aberrant/pathological behaviour. Any cogent story
of qualia must account for both.

> 
> You could just as well say the apparaent behaviour of the universe.

Yes. The universe literally can be the whole, single structure. 

> 
> 
> > >> All of this is derived from a first person presentation of a
> > >> measurement.
> > >> Ergo science is entirely first operson based.
> > >
> > > The fact that science happens to be performed by persons
> > > doesn't make it irreducibly first-personal. That would
> > > depend on whether persons can remove themselves from
> > > scientific descriptions. As it happens they can. That
> > > is still true with much-misunderstood issue of
> > > quantum "observer" involvement, since
> > > that is really apparatus-involvement. No observer
> > > ever influenced an experiment without changing the settings of some
> > > apparatus.
> >
> > I think we are at odds here. The mere presence of a human involing
> > themselves in observation means that a direct causal impact is
> established
> > between the observer and the observed.
> 
> No it doesn't. All "observer influence" is mediated
> by apparatus, as I have said. There is zero evidence
> of direct influence.

No. If you consider that there is only 1 structure there is no possibility
that the observer is ever uninvolved in any observation ever. It is only a
question of extent. That is the implication of the thinking. The causal
chains from the structure of the observer back down the layers 

Human_observer >atom> etc etc.... >space > waaaay down   COMMON PARENT
Observed_thing<atoms< etc etc.... <space < waaaaay back up ^

Everything is connected at the moment the observer claps 'eyes' on the
observed, the causal chain is created. This is quite consistent with all
observation done to date! That is not the point the point is that the
thinking (about structure) can lead to making sense of qualia because qualia
are of the structure too.

> 
> > The only quation is the magnitude
> > of the disturbance thus invoked. Clearly until we start to look at very
> > fine detail the magnitude of the disturbance is trivial. That's when the
> > disturbances make things look quantum mechanical. At all times, however,
> > deep down those disturbances are always there resolving the structures
> > options. I hope that makes sense.
> 
> You seem to be leaning heavily on the disturbance interpretation

Maybe I am. I can't tell. It doesn't seem to matter much.

> 
> Frankly, I found that unintelligible.
> 
> > Trying to shoehorn the situation
> > into philosophical 'ism buckets is of no value.
> 
> It is a rare day when someone thinks of something
> no-one has thought before. The overwhelming likelihood
> is that there is an pre-existing ism for hwat you
> are saying.

Yes. It's called process philosophy, processualism? And leads to process
physics. It was thought of 2500 years ago by Heraclitus and has been
languishing waiting for someone to use it ever since.

> 
> >  I'm after a real practical
> > outcome.
> 
> So why is there nothing quantitative or predictive in what
> you say ?

Already done.

If space and atoms are unified, electromagnetic interactions effect the
local space around them. This idea predicts 'real' virtual bosons generated
at the membrane of neurons and astrocytes, orthogonal to the membrane, with
appearance that is private (imprinted on the space around the membrane (of
which there is a LOT - see above). The collective action of the blizzard of
virtual bosons form perceptual fields...qualia. None of which makes sense
unless there is a single structure...and it also solves the unity and
binding problems and how the same material can generate different
experiential qualities.

And I have dreams of an experimental apparatus that combines 4
micro-brain-scientists to test it. Humans don't get to do the measurement
(experience), but then traditional science has thrown the experience out in
the name of objectivity all along... we can't have it both ways. The human
scientist has to step aside and let the machine scientist do the work. The
latest thing in Copernican/Galilean decentralization!

Now you are going to quote a whole lot of dogma at me which will mean
nothing.

Kill your darlings!

Dual Aspect science has teeth and you get answers.

Cheers
Colin



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