On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 09:40:59AM -0000, David Nyman wrote:
> On Jun 19, 5:09 am, Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > David, I was unable to perceive a question in what you just wrote. I
> > haven't a response, since (sadly) I was unable to understand what you
> > were talking about. :(
> Really?  I'm surprised, but words can indeed be very slippery in this
> context. Oh, well.  To condense: my argument is intended to pump the
> intuition that a 'primitive' (or 'reduced') notion of 'sensing' (or
> please substitute anything that carries the thrust of 'able to
> locate', 'knows it's there', etc.) is already inescapably present in
> the notion of 'interaction' between fundamental 'entities' in any
> feasible model of reality.  Else, how could we claim that they retain
> any coherent sense of being 'in contact'? 

Interaction is in terms of fields - electromagnetic for most of our
everyday examples. The fields themselves are emergent effects from
virtual boson exchange. Now how is this related to sensing exactly?
(Other than sensing being a particular subclass of interaction)


> implications.  So my question is, do you think it has any merit, or is
> simply wrong, indeterminate, or gibberish? And why?

If I have to pick an answer: gibberish. Sensing to me implies some
form of agency at one end of the interaction. I don't attribute any sort
of agency to the interaction between two hydrogen atoms making up a
hydrogen molecule for instance.


A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                         [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au

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 

Reply via email to