On Jan 5, 3:58 pm, ronaldheld <ronaldh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Keywords: complementarity, subjective–objective parallelism
These are the first two keywords for good reason. Subject-object symmetry is fundamental. > from Eastern Philosophy that in certain states of consciousness the > subjective states of the > mind, irrespective of learning, closely reflect objective reality, a > state of affairs contrary to > that of the usual assumption, whereby the contents of the mind reflect > objective reality > purely as a consequence of what one has learnt about it. A good point, and one which supports the idea of multisense epistemology. We have other ways of knowing about ourselves and our universe than what our conscious intellect might assume. > proposing a number of logical correspondences between the two modes of > description (in the > original paper we called the right hand side biological, since we > regarded phenomena such as > signals, decisions and regulation as characteristically biological, a > theme developed in more > detail in Josephson and Conrad (1992)): > [table 1 about by here] > The details of quantum physics and biology are very different, but we > argued that they might > nevertheless be derivative of some common underlying subtler > background process, in the > same way that waves and particles emerge from a common subtler domain, > that of quantum Yes. I found that biology seems to belong on the right hand side also, or, more provocatively, the Eastern or Orienting side. My interpretation differs in that this side is not limited to biology, it's jut that since we are biological, our orienting qualities are closely associated with biology so that biological qualities are identified with anthropic qualities. > phenomenal domain. We thus envisaged the possibility, highlighted in > some of the writings of > Bohr (1958), that biological and quantum accounts of nature might, > like the wave and particle > accounts, of certain phenomena, be complementary rather than, as with > the conventional > view, the first being entirely derivative of the latter. Exactly. The square peg of quantitative analysis does not always fit the round whole. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. 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.