On 2/19/2010 at 8:45 PM, Craig writes:
Ham [said]
phenomena and events are better known as Experience.
And the observer of this experience is you or me. In the
absence of observers there would be no experience,
so experience is subjective in nature.
But we can. Perform the following experiment:
Put 3 iron tools out in the rain.
Tool #1 is watched by someone while rust accumulates on it.
Tool #2 is filmed while no one watches, later the film shows
rust accumulating.
Tool #3 is neither filmed nor watched, but is examined later
to have rust accumulated.
So we have shown that rust accumulates on iron tools
in the rain, even while no one is watching.
I disagree. You have shown that empirical knowledge is grounded in
experience, not that things and events have an independent reality. The use
of cameras and other recording devices only supplements the experiential
construct of the observer by a time extension. There is a cogent design to
what we call "objective experience" which is a valuistic representation of
the essential source. As I said before, "most events are relational in
space, periodic or cyclic in time, and familiar (i.e., predictable)
occurrences." From this perceived congruity we deduce that new events
(transformations) are the effect of prior causes. Repetitive experiences
tend to reinforce the precept of causality.
The observation of any phenomenon or event is an experience. Thus, the
change observed (experienced) in Tool #1 is the accumulation of rust on its
surface. From this we conclude that the rust appearing (experienced) on the
iron is the effect of oxidation by the rainwater over time. Photographed
Tool #2 is also observed to rust, based on indirect experience provided by
the camera. Since unobserved Tool #3 is later observed to be rusty, we
deduce that its apparent (experienced) change is also caused by oxidation
over a comparable time interval.
In all three instances our knowledge of the tool's transformation is
experiential, while the "cause" of the tranformation is an intellectual
precept (knowledge) derived from the sequential mode of our experience.
Does this analysis make my epistemology any clearer?
Regards,
Ham
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
