[Ham] I'm not familiar with the theories of Wundt and Helmholtz, who apparently influenced him, and I consider "psychophysics" a dubious addition to scientific investigation. Science explores the objective world to learn the principles of nature, applying empirically verified facts to a database of useful knowledge. The study of sensory phenomena in relation to physical stimuli assumes the primacy of a physical reality to which sensation is merely reactive (affective). Thus, a science that calls itself psychophysics is not really investigating the psyche but, rather, making the psyche a passive effect of physical phenomena. I think this is a distortion of the empirical approach to knowledge which is what Science is about.
[Krimel] The point of psychophysics is to measure the range of sensitivity of the human nervous system. To determine the frequency and luminosity of light required to excite the retina. What range of sound waves can we hear? What kinds of pressure can the skin detect, etc. All this is a distortion of the empirical approach? [Ham] Let's be clear as to my use of Sensibility as pre-intellectual awareness. This is hardly a "whim" on my part, since my concept is not bound to a specific term. What I mean by "sensibilty" is the capacity to realize value, and I posit this capacity as the primary attribute of being-aware. (If "sensation", as you use it, conforms to this epistemology, we're on the same page. Otherwise, we're still at odds.) [Krimel] Assigning value to sensation is what perception is about. [Ham] My point was that those signals were not reaching the computer's "memory bank" or hard drive. Therefore, the data are insensible to the computer, at least until I turn it on again. [Krimel] So you are saying that a computer is easier to resurrect than a man? [Ham] If sensation requires neither awareness nor consciousness, I do not understand how it can be sensible. Again, I view sensation as something like an itch or a pain, which is definitely a conscious feeling. However, if you're talking about "unowned" perceptive awareness, which I call "primary sensibility," I suppose it could be regarded as "pre-conscious", although it is still awareness. Is this what you had in mind? Also, what do you mean by "becomes real"? Is non-proprietary sensation "unreal"? [Krimel] I am merely talking about Psych 101. Sensation and perception, it is usually an early chapter in the textbook. Sensation is activation of the nervous system. Perception is sensation registering in the brain. Things become increasingly "real" for us as they find ever more connections within the body of our stored experience. [Ham] A comatose person is either unconscious or brain-dead. In either state, "sensation" is a meaningless term, in the same way that "input signals" are meaningless from the perspective of a switched-off computer. The actual signals are "real", of course, but not as inputs. For me a "sensation" is what I feel; "sensibility" is what I might feel if I were consciously receptive to the source of it. [Krimel] What defines the states of sleep and coma is that the nervous system responds to stimulation i.e. pupils dilate, there is a startle reaction to sound etc. but there is no sign of awareness. When the power to your computer is turned of there is no response of any kind. It's dead, Ham. [Ham] This, I believe, is where the "self" initially identifies with its organic being. Its receptivity is limited to the value that is perceptible to that being and differentiated by sense receptors of that being. Finally, this value is objectivized by the intellect as space/time 'beings' whose properties represent the values thus differentiated. [Krimel] The "self" arises at least as much from the integration of diverse sensory input as it does from discriminating differences. But it is important to note that the self arise from its organic being. It is not as though there is a self floating around out there waiting to thumb a ride on the next suitable biological spark it can identify with. [Ham] But what if they have no memories, or are rendered amnesic by the experiment? Can one hallucinate from a blank slate? [Krimel] Hume thought not. Kant said yes, sort of. [Ham] This seems highly speculative to me, as compared with research on fetal development. I don't think the question of emerging consciousness lends itself to objective investigation. [Krimel] There is a whole range of studies on human development. Consciousness in this sense has been studied extensively. You really ought to look into it. [Ham] Excitation of nerve tissue is precisely that, and it is sensible only to the conscious individual whose nerves and brain sense this trauma. I don't see "sensation" as the stimulus but as the final state of the organism on feeling the stimulus. And, of course, you speak of the "external environment" as a causal reference. That's the cognizant creature inferring that it is sensing beingness. If sensibility is only affective, it would mean that there is only externality (otherness), and that the psyche has no essential identity. I maintain that experience is "effective" in the sense that it creates the appearance of physical reality. [Krimel] I agree that we each create our own subjective reality out of the intersection of our biology and our history. [Ham] I would suggest that "within" and "without", like "before" and "after", are constructs of the finitely-limited cognitive process in the same way that objects are. [Krimel] Again and again with the finitely-limited. What is this supposed to mean? I have asked at least three times why you thing "Ultimate" reality is supposed to be. What would infinitely unlimited cognate process do? Why would you think there is such a thing? Is finity like smaller than God's bread box? What sense would an [Ham] Dimensionality and space/time are the mode of human awareness. It is because we are aware of value configured by these conditions that our reality is experienced in this serialized, dimensional way. How could we possibly know "what is relevant" or "what to leave out"? [Krimel] Because we are in the situation? Is this a trick question? [Ham] I would say that the brain, rather than the intellect, is the filter that determines what we experience and what we do not. [Krimel] What we experience and what we do is determined by three things: Our biology, our personal history and the present circumstances. [Ham] On what evidence is that suggestion based? Frankly, I don't see the point of this dolphin/human comparison, except to show that brain mass is not an indicator of intelligence. [Krimel] This is based on studies done with dolphins. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetacean_intelligence is a good start. I would suggest that the differences and similarities between human and dolphin brains and behavior would be immensely interesting to someone interested it the nature of consciousness. [Ham] I stand by my previous statement: > Physical reality does not create the mind, it is objectivized > by mental processing. Time and space describe the finite > limitations of cognizant awareness. The "gaps" between > all of these phenomena represent the nothingness that limits > human perception. [Krimel] Mental processing arises from the electrochemical interactions in the brain. Kant suggested that space and time are hardwired into the brain. I can see merit to this. As for filling in gaps we do this all the time to the holes in our visual field called blindspots. Some of us have more than the standard issue two it would seem. [Ham] Comparing notes to obtain universal verification is someone "being objective" (i.e., rational). That's a different connotation of objectivity than we are discussing here. [Krimel] It is exactly what I am discussing here. If I say you Ham exist as an object in my world, I objectify you in the sense that you mean. But this would simple be to identify you as "other". To the extent that you "are" for me you are a set of patterns that I created and maintain within my neural network. You are not truly "other". [Ham] Objectivity (otherness) and Value-Awareness are the primary contingencies of existence. The mind does not create objects "by definition" but by differentiating value, as I described above. [Krimel] It is like you are doing a crossword puzzle where most of the answers are there for you if you would turn the page over, but you decide to make up a new language to fit into the squares based on the errors you have already made. [Ham] Existence is an awareness/otherness dichotomy. The You that seeks is a "value" entity that has no existence apart from the "beingness" it makes of otherness. Metaphysically, you are a value-aware-of-the-value-of-other. Existentially you are a being-aware. But the "being" of you is only a contingent identity, not your essence. The essence of your being is the value of the Source in which there is no other. [Krimel] It is possible that the above makes sense if it could be translated. Come on Ham I know you can do it. Restate the paragraph above in English. No additions or subtractions just try a straight restatement in plain English. [Ham] Act ually, I like the way your thought is progressing, Case. If you find my comments disparaging, it's because I'm trying to direct you toward a clearer perspective of my epistemology. (If it's any consolation, this is as painful to me as it is to you.) [Krimel] I have tried to tone down a notch but it sure ain't easy. You got that right. 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/
