I would agree with the general thrust of the comments that more specificity is needed early. The current text appears to be motivated by a question that it unfolds. I think that is a fine rhetorical device, however, it needs to unroll in a few sentences and then hit us with an answer very quickly.
Jason On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 7:24 AM, Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
