Steven, I think the recent post below by you is a much clearer and forthright style than in your draft.
Jason H. On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 11:58 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 > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
