I could not enter the text. The old journalistic *who what where when why and how* would perhaps be useful. Three or four brisk paragraphs addressing these questions.
In this *adjective* study* name verb* *What* *Where* = into what stream of thought does this text fit *When* = past present or future *Why* = why is this needed - original - important *How *= The meat of the text - a CSP third - an implementation Cheers, S *ShortFormContent at Blogger* <http://shortformcontent.blogspot.com/> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 4:15 AM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith <ste...@iase.us>wrote: > I will take the strong emotion to be both positive and competitive. It's a > first draft cover piece and you are right to correct me concerning Frege's > Sense and Reference, thank you. > > "The mechanics of sense" simply refers to the mechanism characterizing > sense in biophysics, I assume that there is such a mechanism. Hence, I do > not view sense as incorporeal, nor do I view the scientific mechanism as > facing demise. > > You are, I know, an authority on the lack of substance (Aetherometry). :-) > > I appreciate your input Malgosia and will certainly consider it. > > With respect, > Steven > > > -- > Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith > Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering > http://iase.info > > > > > > > > On Mar 4, 2012, at 10:06 PM, malgosia askanas wrote: > > > I am sorry, but this inflated piece of vacuous hype would forever > discourage me from having anything to do with the book. The only half-way > informative tidbit is that the book concerns "a logic informed by recent > advances in biophysics." By the way, "On Sense and Reference" is not a > book but a 25-page journal article, and it has nothing to do with either > the senses (such as sight or smell) or with making sense of the world. And > what are the "mechanics of sense"; have we now extended scientific > mechanism to incorporeals, just to forestall its demise? > > > > -malgosia > > > > At 6:35 PM -0800 3/4/12, Steven Ericsson-Zenith wrote: > >> Dear List, > >> > >> I am writing the Proemial for my forthcoming book "On The Origin Of > Experience" and will appreciate your feedback. In particular, I ask that > you challenge two things about it. First, over the years of my work I have > developed an aversion to using the term "consciousness," which seems to me > to be too overloaded and vague to be useful. On the other hand Debbie (my > wife) argues that it will interest people more if I use it. Second, the > vague "transhumanism" concerns me. > >> > >> Imagine this is on the back of a book. Does it encourage you to read > the book? > >> > >> > >> Proemial: On The Origin Of Experience > >> > >> Imagine that you could discover something so profound that it would not > only have a broad impact upon the entire species but the universe itself > could not proceed, could not evolve, without consideration of it. > >> > >> This speculation refers to the role an intelligent species capable of > mastering the science of living systems plays in cosmology. Rather than > viewing intelligent species as the end product of a developing universe, it > suggests that they are simply a necessary step along the way. It observes > that an intelligent species able to place life into environments in which > it would not otherwise appear plays a role in the unfolding of the world. > >> > >> Imagine, for example, that future Voyager spacecraft can be constructed > with a fundamental understanding of what is required to build living, > thinking, machines, machines that have the capability of any living system > to heal and reproduce. > >> > >> The intelligent creation of such machines, machines that experience, > may be an essential part of nature's unfolding. This thought suggests that > intelligent species, here and elsewhere in the universe, play a role in the > natural dynamics of the unfolding world. > >> > >> Such a species would become the evolved ³intelligent designers² of > life, extending life beyond the principles and necessities of arbitrary > evolution, an inevitable part of nature's ³plan² to move life beyond its > dependence upon the environment in which it first evolves. > >> > >> If this is the case then our species, along with other such species > that may appear elsewhere, are not mere spectators but play a role in the > unfolding of the world. > >> > >> In recent decades we have made significant advances in understanding > the science of the living. Modern biophysics has begun to show us the > detailed composition and dynamics of biophysical structure. For the record, > it's nothing like a modern computer system. > >> > >> The results of this global effort are Galilean in their scope and > pregnant with implication. It is surely only a matter of time before we > move to the Newtonian stage in the development of our understanding and > learn the details of how sense is formed and modified, the role that sense > plays in our directed actions, and how intelligent thought functions. > >> > >> Today, however, there is only a poor understanding of the mechanics of > sense. Theorists have had little time to give the new data deep > consideration. > >> > >> Clearly, more biophysical experiments, more observational data, will > help us. If we look at the history of science this period is analogous to > the period before Newton, in which experimentalists and observers such as > Galileo and Copernicus built the foundations of Newton's inquiry. A > breakthrough of a kind similar to Newton's discovery of gravitation is > required. > >> > >> But to make this breakthrough it is the discipline of the logicians > that we need to recall. Before the age of sterile twentieth century logic, > when mathematical logic was first developed and before modern computers > were invented, it is the logicians that concerned themselves with > explaining the nature and operation of thought and sense. Recall that > George Boole (1815-1864) entitled his work on logic The Laws Of Thought[1] > and the founder of modern logic, Gottlob Frege (1848-1925), wrote the book > entitled Sense And Reference[2]. I know from experience that it is a > surprise to many that use logic everyday in their education and computing > professions that the original concern of logicians is the operation of the > senses and the mind. If we are to uncover the mechanics of sense and > thought, if we are to understand the biophysical operation of the mind, > then it is this earlier inquiry to which we must return. > >> > >> My subject here is logic of the kind that existed before the current > era. It is a logic informed by recent advances in biophysics. It explores > solutions that could not have been considered by the founders of > mathematical logic because they lacked this new data, and it takes steps > toward a calculus for biophysics. It does not provide the final answer. > This is because we propose that something new is to be discovered. But we > do present an hypothesis that identifies exactly what that something is and > how to find it. What is more, even if we discover the hypothesis is false > we will learn something new and make progress. > >> > >> The speculation above, that we can discover something so profound that > it will not only have a broad impact upon the entire species but that the > universe itself cannot proceed without it, will give philosophers something > to talk about for generations. It amuses me, in any case. In the meantime > we in science, and logic in particular, have work to do. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith > >> Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering > >> http://iase.info > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the > PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to > lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body > of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to > PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L > listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to > lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body > of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to > PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
