"...To suggest such a thing seems no more outrageous than Copernicus proposing that our planet is not the center of things or Newton suggesting that the observations made before him suggest a universal previously unconsidered. Of course, I am well aware of the reluctance to make such associations, they appear arrogant and immodest. But must we not be immodest to challenge received authority and dream of new and grander conceptions?..."
Hi Steven, As I suspected you're putting forward a hypothesis. That's fine, but one of the greatest dangers in speculative thought I think is mistaking the hypothesis generation stage, the making of suggestions, for the full inquiry. All manner of suggestions abound about all manner of things - the hard work is to show which suggestions are *true*. There's a good discussion by Peirce of all this buried somewhere in the History of Science volumes (ed Eisele), where he describes many suggestions that have been made about the Egyptian pyramids, how the builders consciously aligned them with all manner of astronomical observations. The problem was that the suggestions 'explained' the data that existed beautifully, but were never tested on new data. Peirce found new data for them and they fell over. How such 'new data' might be obtained in your chosen area of inquiry is not clear to me, but I would say the need for it is no less crucial. Thank you for sharing your searching inquiries with us on the list. Cheers, Cathy On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 6:58 AM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith <ste...@iase.us>wrote: > > Dear Cathy, > > Let us ignore for a moment the contents of the book, which presents for a > general audience a theory dealing with the foundations of logic and > apprehension, considered by many audiences on first sight to be a tired > subject. > > Today's audience will require some motivation to read the book in the face > of an education and professional dogma that considers that work in logic is > complete. In the face also of late twentieth century presentations of logic > in the media, whose ambassador is Star Trek's Spock, where logic is > ridiculed as an art, the domain of aliens, lacking the passion of the human > endeavor. > > Is it not the case that life created by an evolved intelligent species and > placed into environments in which it would not otherwise appear suggests > that such species may play a role in the bigger picture, that in fact, it > may be necessary for the universe to evolve and realize its potential? How > many times in the unfolding of life in the universe will such an > opportunity appear? If we are presented with it how can we, how dare we, > ignore it? > > To suggest such a thing seems no more outrageous than Copernicus proposing > that our planet is not the center of things or Newton suggesting that the > observations made before him suggest a universal previously unconsidered. > Of course, I am well aware of the reluctance to make such associations, > they appear arrogant and immodest. But must we not be immodest to challenge > received authority and dream of new and grander conceptions? > > The observations upon which the arguments of Copernicus and Newton are > founded are no less compelling that recent advances in biophysics. The veil > is being lifted and whether it be my theory or another that enables it, it > now seems inevitable that we will understand the nature of living systems > to the degree possible in order to create them by our design and for our > purpose. > > This view is surely more plausible than the alternative in popular > culture, which is to see this potential in descendants of current computing > systems and robotics, which relies upon sterile machines to awaken and tell > us what to do. > > I understand the caution, and in large part it is the reason for my > seeking feedback outside of my immediate circle. It is a simple and > startling observation. As I note, it is one that amuses me but is > none-the-less seriously made. > > How does one know such a thing? It is an abduction, a speculation from > current circumstance. The bigger question is, can it be verified or > falsified by science? And surely, it can. It is not merely plausible in the > fictional sense, it is plausible in fact. To which discipline must we turn > to ensure this verification or denial? Who has given greater and deeper > consideration to the operation of the senses, to the function of the mind, > if it is not the logicians, and especially Peirce? > > How does one understate such a thing? > > With respect, > Steven > > -- > Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith > Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering > http://iase.info > > > > > > > > On Mar 5, 2012, at 7:52 PM, Catherine Legg wrote: > > > Hi Steven, > > > > I'm afraid I must join my voice to those who feel they would not pick > > up the book based on your blurb (or preface - why call it a > > 'Proemial'? What is a 'proemial'??) below. > > > > Though many of the component ideas are interesting, your overall > > expression of them seems to display a grandiosity which is a red flag > > to a serious philosopher. In particular there is this sentence which > > you put right upfront: > > > > "...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." > > > > I don't see how you could possibly know this - what scientific > > methodology might deliver this result. > > > > Loving the interesting range of 'hands-on' critical perspectives > > already generously provided by Peirce-listers... > > > > Cheers, Cathy > > > > On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith <ste...@iase.us> > 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 “intelligent designers” of > life, extending life beyond the principles and necessities of arbitrary > evolution, an inevitable part of nature's “plan” 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
