On 3 February 2014 05:39, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> But of course he must still elucidate the psycho-physical principles he >> seeks, in order to build a bridge from the relation of acquaintance to that >> of function and I don't think even he would claim to have achieved that >> beyond some speculative ideas on the role of information. So building such >> a bridge is a necessity for any theory before we can concede that it has >> eluded the jaws of the POPJ. >> >> I would certainly be interested to hear how your theory tackles this >> problem, if in fact we've now succeeded in establishing just what it is. >> > I think that Chalmers gets most of the way there in general, but in a few > areas stops short of committing to what I call primordial pansensitivity, > but could be called Absolute panpsychism. I've been influenced directly > from Chalmers and his formulation of the Hard Problem, and I see myself in > many ways as picking up where he leaves off. For all of his boldness in > approaching the possibility of panpsychism, he is still operating from a > framework which assumes structure and mechanism, at least as parallel to > consciousness. What I am looking at is a universe which is fundamentally > aesthetic, i.e., a self-nesting dream about dreaming. The more nested the > dream, the more realism can be leveraged, because the scale of time and > space can be expanded, making sub-dreams seem physical and super-dreams > seem intuitive from any given dream. It's all being carved out of the > Totality like a Jack O Lantern (metaphorically, obviously, I'm not talking > about a carving of a literal container). The totality need not be a deity > or a Mind as far as I can figure, but human experience might be part of a > larger kind of experience which may as well be deity-like or Mind like in > part. > > What I propose then is that coherence itself is relativistic and changes > dynamically as any individual experience becomes more transparent to the > Totality or more reflective of the insensitivity which masks the totality > (the bodies-in-spacetime view). I'm not claiming to have an exhaustive > reinterpretation of physics, only that I might have put together all four > corners of the frame of such a reinterpretation. It could take centuries to > fill in the rest of the puzzle, and I have no delusions that it is my > account that has to be the one which leads us there. If anything at all > comes of my efforts, I'd be pretty surprised, but I do suspect that any > correct reinterpretation of physics will be more or less consistent with > the basic ideas I'm proposing. > > Einstein too, like Chalmers, was on the right track but didn't go far > enough. He was right not to accept QM also, but he did not take the final > leap of seeing order itself as a relativistic feature, and that physics > itself was a protocol of shared perception rather than just dynamic ratios > of measure. Measure, like computation and information, ultimately can only > make sense if it is part of a larger and deeper sense of intention and > appreciation. The current idea of information overlooks the "in" and treats > all phenomena as formation. This is, in my understanding, only the public > range of physics. Private physics, or the physics of privacy is the source > and destination of all forms and functions. Forms are a side view of > experience which can be appreciated. Functions are a side view of > experience which represent participation. > I'm sorry Craig, but I need you to help me a bit more to understand which part of the above was an answer to the question I posed. Your remarks are interesting but they don't help me to understand precisely what your theory relies on to build the necessary bridge from the relation of acquaintance to that of function (the psycho-physical laws, to use Chalmers's terminology). I thought we'd agreed that this is what it would take to draw the teeth of the paradox, because it would elucidate how the functional analogues of our experiential selves are able to truthfully make the claims they do. Perhaps you could precis the relevant concepts for me? David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
