Hi Max, In line with my preoccupation and passion: consciousness......... I confine my comments to that narrow scope and offer the following observations (which I did with my phenomenal consciousness! :-)
Page 4 Section D. I cannot utter a 'WOOHOO!' too loud here, to finally see these kinds of words appearing. There is a long record on this forum of me trying to get people to _really_ grasp the nature of the difference between "Description/Appearance(apparent causal necessity)/Phenomenon" to "Explanation/Actual Causal Necessity/Noumenon". In Max's work we clearly have the arrival of a scientifically valid noumenon. You may be aware that I have been raving on ad nauseum here recently about my "EC", which literally is a 'MUH'. The universe literally 'is' an instantated EC, say MUHcol. We humans are literally an ongoing proof written in EC.....albeit of a different nature to the one proposed, say MUHmax. The difference between MUHmax and MUHcol are not important - the fact of the clear appreciation and expression of the ontological/epistemological 'cut' (as Howard Pattee[2] puts it) and distinction is what is important. ..........the words clearly distinguish 'being' from 'appearance'. They embed the origins of all knowledge as sourced subjectively from within it....through the embedded agency of the FROG scientist's depiction of the BIRD side of the cut. More than that, the words emerge in a way that is hard to argue against without appearing (at least methodologically/virtually) to hold rather bizarre views about the ontology (underlying reality) of the universe - ...far more bizarre than any MUH.........as the final para clearly shows. so ............YES! RE: Frogs and Birds Having said the above, I detect a possible small crack in the Bird/ Frog depiction that might open up a door for unfounded criticism from those who struggle to see the difference between a noumenon and phenomenon. What you are describing is what I have written about (rather badly!) [1]: It is a 'dual aspect science'. What I described there is the phenomenon aspect (T = FROG) and the 'noumenon' aspect (T' = BIRD). Both are completely equivalent descriptions of the same thing, the universe U(.) as T' and how that universe appears (T') when you are made of it, inside it, with observational capacities delivered by T', _not_ T. The 'helicopter/bird' view metaphor is not quite right, IMO - the MUH is a noumenon and not to be confused with an 'objective view' (there is no such thing!)...the BIRD metaphor might confuse things. The missing subtlety, which undermines all empirical support for MUHmax, is that both the FROG's view _AND_ the BIRD's view are equally supported by any and all empirical work. (with specific ref to the isomorphism sentence on P4, section D). The FROG can lay no claim to exclusive use of empirical work - for the noumenon is the thing that is actually generating the 'observation' intrinsic in ...as you say on P4, top.....'processes that give rise to the familiar sensations of self awareness' ......that the FROG has... that are the single, mandated and only sources of all scientific evidence (where scientist = FROG, and everything about the MUH is a product of that perspective). Without that faculty there is no science. I hope I am making sense here....I don't think you have made enough mileage out of this brute FROG/BIRD reality as regards their place as equals in provision of DESCRIPTION/EXPLANATION resp. using the same evidence system: phenomenal consciousness. RE: Final Note There is one aspect to MUH which remains completely absent and which, IMO, is absolutely vital to any real 'TOE'..... Whilst recognizing that 'it is like something' to be FROG.....MUHmax provides no basis for the necessity that it be 'like something' to be FROG under the circumstances of being configured as a FROG. That 'contents of consciousness/that which is seen/observed', is the single source of all scientific evidence used in support of all FROG and BIRD MUH rule sets (=FROG/BIRD aspect science)....Fine...But nowhere is the paper MUHmax explanatory of how the BIRD view/descriptions provide the phenomenal consciousness that the FROG uses to do observation in support of all propositions for either collection of rules. After all.....it is not the FROGs descriptions, derived _directly using_ observation of MUH that deliver the observations.........this is oxymoronic.....rather it is the noumenon (The BIRD rules of MUHmax) that delivers observation (the faculty of observation, through which all FROG views are delivered). A TOE must deliver 'everything', right? Well this chunk of 'everything' is not in the paper. None of the QM or anything else in your paper does it, nor does it propose a principle upon which it may be delivered....AFAICT. Maybe I missed it or have wires crossed....Having said that, I don't believe you actually have to deliver it right now............what is more important is mere recognition of the need and a clear delineation of the responsibility for the ultimate source of the FROG's ability to observe as BIRD- aspect rules, not FROG-aspect rules. To me the detail of the MUHmax is a side issue to the real message of your paper......regardless of the chosen MUH (there could be 100 flavours including a MUHbruno and so on....), what has to happen to science is that it must go 'dual aspect' and recognise KANT's error that the noumenon is scientifically intractable........and that is, in effect, what you have done...IMHO...of course.... I hope this is of some use.......... cheers colin hales [1] Hales, C. 'AI and Science's Lost Realm', IEEE Intelligent Systems vol. 21, no. 3, 2006. 76-81. [2] Pattee, H. H. 'The physics of symbols: bridging the epistemic cut', Biosystems vol. 60, no. 1-3, 2001. 5-21. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
