Right on, Right on! That is most telling to me is that what you are
saying here is just another way of thinking about what Bruno calls the
"level of substitution".
On 1/27/2012 6:45 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jan 27, 5:51 pm, Terren Suydam<terren.suy...@gmail.com> wrote:
Why do you focus exclusively on electromagnetism as the fundament of
"sensorimotive"? Wouldn't strong and weak nuclear forces have the
same basic "sensorimotive" properties?
I use electromagnetism because it has an iron clad association with
sensroimotive experience. That is the main symmetry I want to get
across. Once we understand that, all forces, strong, weak,
electromagnetic, and gravitational would be different inertial frames
of reference of the same thing. They make sense in different ways, as
would be appropriate when you are talking about density of large
objects versus charge of atoms or how atoms are held together and fall
apart, but to me these are just computational details. It's *all*
The most provocative possibility of this is that rather than a
Classical limit in the microcosm at which QED supersedes Newton, there
is a Copernican limit at which we stop detecting objects per se and
begin detecting our own instruments sensitivity itself. Atoms are
antennas, and quantum mechanics are the exterior most aspects of the
broadcasts. The form of the broadcasts looks electromagnetic to us
(from the outside) but feels sensorimotive to us from the inside. Not
that our perception is literally atomic, just as TV programs aren't
only pixels, but our perception is figuratively meta-meta-meta-meta
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at