|
It seems we have made a lot of progress (at an
almost tacit level?) during these discussions and come to a point of
consensus after all. Andrei's your concluding reply to Pedro accepting the
" the necessarily \"social\" construction of
human knowledge..." and the need of "neuromathematics" point in that direction.
However I think Andrei's use of the word "objective" is a bit
bewildering. If you say <<transformers of information>> are not less
CONSENSUAL than electrons or photons then I think you, Pedro and I are fully
agreed.
I will also
take the opportunity to say that my point with formulating the realist's dilemma
was to point out that a human being in principle is unable to produce a
model of human perception on the basis of observation/experimentation. The
human capacity of perception is the cause of this shortcoming, which is
then also a shortcoming of the experimental methodology - a fact that is
seldom recognised. The brain-internal feed-back pathways of data (not
information!) here play a decisive role. The human brain has not evolved to an
instrument of truth replication at all - on the contrary the brain is
magnificent tool of adaptation.
Well - back to
our dawning consensus. When we are unable to make certain decisions by
observation/experiments we are BOUND to decide by consensual decisions - and
thus directed to a science based on social construction and consensus. There is
no other way out. However social constructs are not different from personal
constructs in another way that they are the result of group or
personal decisions respective. This insight once more connect us to the
real/unreal issue that also must be decided in a state of consensus - simply
because we unable to do this experimentally. This is why the real/unreal
distinction is unscientific. However we can decide together that there is a real
world - but this is not what scientists in general mean by a scientific
decision! The proposal at the fundaments of science that there are
two different domains - the real and the mental - is however deeply
misleading. To my mind (and Bohr's) there is only one - the domain of
experience; personally constructed experience and shared/consensually
constructed "experience" (or scientifically
constructed models).
To my surprise it seems we finally landed on a platform of
consensus --- and I fully agree with Pedro when saying the future
will tell whether we are able to trascend formal analogies
between realms and achieve a new, more catholic approach to information / and science as a whole/ --none of the current approaches has achieved a breakthrough yet, and so the need for our exchange of views! Arne
Arne Kjellman PhD
Dept. of Computer and Systems Sciences Stockholm University and KTH Forum 100 S-164 40 Kista SWEDEN For direct correspondence use this address: Skrangstabodarna 140 S-852 96 Sundsvall SWEDEN phone +46-60 36430 Home-page http://www.dsv.su.se/~kjellman/
|
_______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
