Colin, I very strongly disagree with your intentions even though I believe in a dual-aspect reality. Science does very well right now based on experimental confirmation of hypothesis. Your first step should be to establish how a dual-aspect science can be experimentally verified. Frankly you have no right to govern science, nor does anyone else. Richard
On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 5:19 PM, ColinHales <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Liz, Mike, et.al. > > It's time for the nature/descriptions of it/math relationship to undergo > some formal attention by science. > > Discussions of the options we have in how we humans behave when describing > the universe, in any other human social context, would be the job of a > *governing > body* and is called self governance. Variable levels of social formality > attract varying levels of formality in the self governance. We have self > governance for tennis, rugby, legal system, trade etc. etc. etc. > > We have _zero_ self governance for science. Scientists are unaware there > is even an option. > > Scientific behaviour is universally assumed complete, finished, fixed. It > is learned by imitation of mentors, not by being handed the rules on a > single sheet of paper on day 1. Self-governance at least writes down the > 'rules' e.g. tennis. In the book I write down the rules of scientific > behaviour (as practiced for 350 years) for the first time. It is not > written down anywhere else. If there is a fundamental limit in the > behaviour, and you never ever review the behaviour .... isn't it obvious > what goes wrong? > > Please do not confuse the behaviour that produces science outcomes with > the outcomes of the behaviour. This is about the former, not the latter. > > This list's decade++ of unresolved endless debate devoid of any sort of > progress is a symptom of the lack of self governance in science. Nothing > will ever get resolved until we document what we actually do as scientists, > look formally at its weakness/limits and then propose changes, to what > scientific behaviour is, to deal with it. We must change scientific > behaviour itself. > > We can't 'discover' our way to progress in this. We have to 'govern' our > way to progress. > > Self-governance is not self-regulation. Science brilliantly ensures the > ‘assumed, undocumented rules’ are followed. Science never ever reviews the > rules. It’s assumed complete. My book reveals this strange, unique position > in science for what it is. > > Science’s governance is not and never was the job of philosophy. > > Until we have at least one serious attempt at self governance, and a > willingness to change science itself, we will be stuck with a 350 year old > fossil social behaviour operating in an anomalous undocumented way, full of > presupposition and endless debates and no resolution on the relationship > between computing and scientific description, the scientific account of the > observer, the scientific account of what is observed, and the natural world > itself. > > In the conduct of science, none of us have a right to an opinion: "Assume > X", "Take exception to Y", "I Believe Z", "any sort of philosophical > XYZ-ism", "Tegmark is right" etc etc etc. > > We only have the right to what we can argue for with evidence. > > That's what I do in the book. About science behaviour itself, not its > outputs. > > Dual aspect science is an empirical proposition. It has a relationship > between the underlying world and computation. It has a relationship between > the natural world and the observer. It has a self-established and doubtable > account of the limits of knowledge of the natural world acquired from > within. It does not assume uniqueness or arbitrary fixedness in any > description of nature. It lets a computer’s account of nature and the human > cognitive account of nature differ in structured, known ways. All of it is > directly testable. The framework upgrade is a testable hypothesis. > > Someone on this list might have another proposal. Great! Let's organise a > governing body to examine all options and actually _do something_ about it. > > I am going to have a go at establishing a forum for the first act of science > self-governance in the modern era. An ASSC consciousness conference, where > physics and neuroscientists are well enough informed, would do nicely. > > Meanwhile, if the folk on this list could raise their awareness of self > governance and what it might mean for science, then something might > actually come of all the endless debates. Nothing is ever going to happen > if we don't do this. > > Cheers > > Colin Hales > > > > -- > 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/d/optout. > -- 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/d/optout.
