Well Ham, For the purposes of increasing my understanding of your epistemology, I would ask the following question. At what point does the objective (experience creating) become the subjective (experience translation)? I would agree that all tools are extensions of the mind, and I do not want to get into semantics concerning the subjective and objective. If our reality is the experiencing of a larger world, where does that interface lie?
Mark On Feb 20, 2010, at 10:39:38 AM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote: 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/ 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/
