On Jan 12, 10:50 pm, Colin Hales <c.ha...@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
> I confess to the usual level of exasperation. Yet again the great
> culturally maintained mental block subverts real progress. And, yet
> again, the participant doesn;t even know they are doing it.  Garrett
> says ....
> /"The key is that observers are just a particular type of information,
> as is everything else. That is, we assume that the Physical Church
> Turing Thesis (PCTT) ..blah blah blah...."
> /
> The author has somehow remained completely uninformed by the real
> message in the consciousness material cited in the article.
> *Observers are NOT just a particular type of information!!!!*
> The word information _was defined by an observer_,

The word "observer" was defined by an observer. Cannot observers
describe themselves exactly? Is  a description necessarily inaccurate
because it is a description? Are observers not observers because
they define themselves as observers, and their descriptions
are necessarily wrong?

> a human, USING
> observation. Like every other word it's just a metaphoric description of
> as thing, with meaning to a human.  No matter what logical steps one
> proceeds to enact from this juncture, you are not describing anything
> that can be used to build or explain an observer. You are merely
> describing what an observer will see.
> What does it take to get something so simple across to physics?
> I'll have yet another go at it.
> Consider a SET_X =  {BALL1, BALL2, BALL3, BALL4}
> This is a traditional 3-rd person (3P) view of the set created by a
> scientific act of OBSERVATION of the set of balls.
> BALL SET SCIENCE then proceeds to construct very clever mathematical
> descriptions of set member behaviour.
> If you are the observer = BALL1, INSIDE SET X, the very act of
> observation results from the 1ST PERSON (1-P) relationship between [you,
> observer = BALL 1 ] and [the rest of the set, from within SET_X].  This
> description is not the same as the above description of SET_X!!!!

Merely being different is  not much of an issue. A 2D perspective is
differerent to a 3D model, but given a 3D model of something you
can derive any 2D perspective you like. You need to explain
why a 1p observation is not similarly derivable from the 3p

> anyone see that ?? The ability to observe anything arises from that
> circumstance, not from the 3P-circumstance constructed by having observed

*Why* can't you have 3P descriptions of observers and observations?

> Science has not even begun to characterise SET_X   in the 1P way.

Maybe you could say what the explanatory gap is.

> =================
> Every single attempt so far in science has the following generic form.....
> I am human scientist FRED. How we humans do observation is a real
> mystery. I like mysteries. And I am really good at maths. I will do the
> very clever maths of observation. Now where do I begin.......ASSUMING
> OBSERVATION ....... blah blah blah.....
> Then off we go into the weeds, YET AGAIN.
> FRED just doesn't get the difference between 1-P and 3-P. It's a
> systemic blindness.
> I'll just crawl off and fume for a while. I'll be OK soon enough! :-)
> Colin Hales
> <if you can't formulaically predict/build an observer with what you
> produced, you haven't explained observation and you don't really
> understand it>
> ronaldheld wrote:
> >http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1101/1101.2198v1.pdf
> >    Any comments?
> >                                  Ronald

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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to