On Oct 1, 4:44 pm, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Craig,
> I went through most of your (unmarked) remarks and my mouse forced me
> (against my better judgement) to add some of my own.
> I wll insert in blue - bold Italics.
> John Mikes

Thanks John. I appreciate your comments, although I will have to take
your word for their blueness and italicized format. I'm just read
reading this through the webpage because it seems like gmail messes up
the the formatting when I do replies. Do you have a good way of
reading/writing to this list in rich text?

> Just because it makes you uncomfortable doesn't mean it's not
> accurate. My point is that front end - back end reflects the parity
> and parallelism of the system. It is not a cascading bottom up
> causality, it is a parallel coordination as well as a bi-directional
> mutual causality.
> *
> *Add to it: the rest of the so far unknown everything that may also*
> *initiate the observed little we know of. Causality as we speak about *
> *it is a selection from the already known - rejecting the rest of the *
> *world and the rest of the aspects - those we did not yet perceived.*
> ***

Yes, it amazes me, given the history of science being built of
revolutionary ideas on the ruins of shattered paradigms that we are
still so quick to assume that 'this time, we must have it right'. It
is just too unthinkable that anything so fundamental as the relation
between subjectivity and material could be questioned. Even knowing as
we do about the hundreds of identifiable forms of cognitive bias which
our reasoning is subject to, we are still blind to their influence in
our own epistemological framework. I got into trouble here for calling
our reverse engineering approach to understanding consciousness, life,
and the cosmos 'forensic', but I think that it's an appropriate term.
By handling our inquiry into sentience like a criminal investigation,
we limit our evidence to what is no longer alive.

>
> >Worse, either this
> > invisible back end is tinkering with the trajectories of particles (as in
> > interactionist dualism) or it is just there, having no effect (as an
> > epiphenomenon)
>
> No, you just don't understand it because you are holding on to the
> fantasy of a voyeuristic universe. I'm talking about the voice in your
> head right now that you are listening to read this sentence. This
> voice is reflected as electromagnetic modulation patterns in the brain
> - changing voltages, action potentials, ion channels opening and
> closing.. but those things are all utterly meaningless were it not for
> their top level coherence as a voice in someone's mind. The voice is
> indeed invisible, and it does indeed orchestrate brain activity from
> within, but the trajectories of particles are determined by their own
> causes and conditions - they do what they need to do, and they do what
> the brain as a whole needs them to do. They are all part of the same
> system.
> *
> *Nice description, IMO missing the essence: the 'mentality' of which*
> *this entire system (neuronl brainfunctions) is a TOOL for. The one*
> *that thinks, remembers, is aware and erxperiences. 'Us' (self?)*
> ***
>

Yes, that seems to be an inconvenient state of affairs to explain.
What is the purpose of the brain if not to be of use to the person who
inhabits the body? Why would the brain need to invent 'us' to do what
it's already doing for it's own neurological and biological
evolutionary purposes?

>
>
>
> > > The back end
> > > thoughts and feelings cannot be reduced to the front end activities of
> > > neurons or ion channels, but they can be reduced to the back end
> > > experiences of those neurons or ion channels - almost, except that
> > > they synergize in a more significant way than front end phenomena can.
>
> > > Think of it like a fractal vis if you want, where the large design is
> > > always emerging from small designs, but imagine that the large design
> > > and the small designs are both controlled by separate, but overlapping
> > > intelligences so that sometimes the small forms change and propagate
> > > to the larger picture and other times the largest picture changes and
> > > all of the smaller images are consequently changed. Now imagine that
> > > the entire fractal dynamic has an invisible, private backstage to it,
>
> > Either this invisible and irreducible backstage can alter the direction or
> > energy of particles (thus leading to observable physical differences and
> > effects) or it cannot, making it an unnecessary epiphenomenon.  Which
> would
> > you say it is?
>
> The direction and energy of particles *is* the invisible and
> irreducible backstage, just seen from the public front. All events and
> energies are experiences of material substances. It's only confusing
> because we are such an enormous compilation of energies and materials
> and we are overwhelmed with the front end appearances of them as
> molecules, cells, tissues, etc. We can't see the private, experiential
> side of all of those microcosmic structures so we are confounded by
> the necessity of jumping from the fact of our own monumentally
> elaborated sensorimotive end product of subjective evolution to the
> fact of an equally monumental but misleading universe of necessary but
> not sufficient material phenomena.
> *
> *The last 6-line sentence should be carved in gold. I would leave out*
> *'microcosmic'  and think twice about  the 'material' figment, leading *
> *to a 'physical world' statistically re-evaluated every time when new *
> *'information' has been received. Statistically means the arbitrary choice*
> *of the boundaries, making the decisions a lie.  *
> ***

I think I get what you are saying. I was talking specifically about
microcosmic phenomena here because Jason is intent on pursuing an
epistemology of devout bottom up determinism, but yes, of course it's
true on all levels of the cosmos what we cannot see the invisible
forest for the statistical trees, mistaking, in our contemporary
Occidentosis the existence of probability for the impossibility of
teleological insistence. When we subscribe to this worldview of
inevitability, we are deciding that we cannot decide anything,
choosing to believe that we cannot choose to believe. It is insanity
disguised as reason.

>  Particles change their charge, polarize and depolarize, bind and
> dissolve bonds as responses to local conditions which they alone are
> directly sensitive to. Those changes are reflected in and reflections
> of the global changes which are instantiated at the top level. Our
> backstage process changes their backstage process and vice versa, but
> you can't translate the backstage changes directly into the front end
> appearances without knowing both ends of the translation. That's
> because they are ontological opposites - material objects in space on
> the front end and perceptual subjects through time on the back end.
> *
> *I can appreciate your struggle with the conventional words. *
>

Thanks. Don't new ideas always bring with them new words?

Craig

-- 
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to