Craig, It's hard to understand how your view is self consistent. You still seem to be assuming some unstated observer, which you deny, by claiming pattern recognition, aesthetics, appreciation, participation must somehow precede any ontological formulation. These are all aspects of how mind views reality, rather than fundamental reality itself.
For me at least, you need to clarify your thesis and try to state the whole more simply and completely. As it is it seems fragmentary and inconsistent, or at least backwards to ordinary thinking... Edgar On Monday, February 24, 2014 9:08:52 AM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Monday, February 24, 2014 8:09:35 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >> >> Craig, >> >> How do you define "experiential phenomena" without invoking an observer >> to experience them? >> > > The same way that I would invoke 'material phenomena' or 'energetic > phenomena' without an observer to experience them. We are only a particular > kind of experience, so it is hard to say whether the nested quality of that > experience that makes it seem as if we are some 'thing' observing from > behind a face is more local to conscious animals than to experience itself. > > >> Just something that COULD be experienced if an observer was there to >> experience it? >> > > No, I get rid of the observer assumption altogether, or make it ambiguous. > All experiences may have some degree of distinction between interior and > exterior aesthetics, but only some experiences might constellate into a > more formal narrative of observation. > > >> >> In my book I define what I call Xperience as the computational alteration >> of any information form (information forms being what makes up the >> universe) and thus view all computations that make up the universe in terms >> of the Xperiences of GENERIC observers. Human and biological EXperience >> then becomes just a subset of the general phenomenon which constitutes the >> universe. >> >> But I suspect your definition is something quite different? >> > > Actually not so different, except that by using information forms as > fundamental, you are choosing the third person, object view (forms and > functions = patterns) without acknowledging the pattern recognition (= > appreciation and participation) that must ontologically precede any > particular formations. Computation is automation and unconsciousness. Forms > and functions are like cliches or masks for the underlying sense experience. > > Craig > > >> Edgar >> >> On Sunday, February 23, 2014 8:43:08 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sunday, February 23, 2014 8:13:15 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >>>> >>>> Craig, >>>> >>>> Yes of course there can be motion or relations without an experience if >>>> you mean a human experience. >>>> >>> >>> No, I don't mean human experience. Not even biological experience, just >>> experiential phenomena. >>> >>> >>>> The only people who believe otherwise are a few comp and >>>> intersubjectivists who believe nothing happened in the whole universe >>>> before humans came along. >>>> >>> >>> I don't think that there are any many genuine solipsists or >>> anthropcentrists out there outside of religious fanatics, but the >>> accusation that there are such beliefs out there is very popular. I'm >>> talking about physics and ontology, it has nothing to do with biology or >>> Homo sapiens. >>> >>> Craig >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Edgar >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sunday, February 23, 2014 6:39:45 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Can there be any motion or relation without an experience in which a >>>>> sense of motion or relation is literally encountered? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sunday, February 23, 2014 9:37:46 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> All, >>>>>> >>>>>> Here's one more theory from my book on Reality: >>>>>> >>>>>> All forms of mass and energy are just different forms of relative >>>>>> motion. They actually have to be different forms of the same thing for >>>>>> there to be mass-energy conservation, and different forms of relative >>>>>> motion are what they are. >>>>>> >>>>>> Rest mass in this theory is just vibrational motion. It is relative >>>>>> motion, but since this relative motion is so spatially confined, it >>>>>> appears >>>>>> the same to all external observers. It is equally relative to all >>>>>> observers, thus it appears absolute in having the same value relative to >>>>>> all observers. Thus rest mass is the same to all observers, even though >>>>>> it >>>>>> is actually relative motion. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is somewhat similar to string theory's notion of particles as >>>>>> vibrating strings. But in my theory the vibration itself is not the >>>>>> particle and there is no need for extra dimensions. In my theory, the >>>>>> vibration takes place in ordinary 3D space and represents only the mass >>>>>> of >>>>>> the particle. Only in 3D space is it interconvertible to other 3D >>>>>> relative >>>>>> motions. >>>>>> >>>>>> [In my theory particles themselves are composed of their particle >>>>>> properties (not vibrating strings), one of which is mass-energy, but >>>>>> that's >>>>>> another part of the theory I won't get into in this post.] >>>>>> >>>>>> So in this theory the conversion of mass to energy is quite simple. >>>>>> It's just the conversion of the equivalent amount of vibrational motion >>>>>> into either the relative linear motion of kinetic energy and/or the >>>>>> relative wave motion of EM energy. >>>>>> >>>>>> This theory neatly conceptually unifies all forms of mass and energy, >>>>>> and the conversion of one form to another as simply the conversion of >>>>>> one >>>>>> form of relative motion to an equivalent amount of another. >>>>>> >>>>>> All other forms of energy neatly conform to this explanation >>>>>> including what we call potential energy which is really just an >>>>>> accounting >>>>>> trick. What we call potential energy is actually just some form of >>>>>> blocking >>>>>> (or impinging) energy from a system external to the system under >>>>>> consideration. To just analyze the system itself, we imagine a potential >>>>>> energy IN the system equivalent to the actual blocking energy outside >>>>>> the >>>>>> system. It just makes things easier to analyze. So potential energy is >>>>>> not >>>>>> a real form of energy, not a real relative motion, but an accounting >>>>>> trick >>>>>> to confine analysis to an isolated system when systems are not actually >>>>>> energetically isolated from their environments. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Edgar >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
