Hi folks,
I am finally getting somewhere. My paper has just been published. :
Hales, C. 'Dual Aspect Science', Journal of Consciousness Studies vol.
16, no. 2-3, 2009. 30-73.
Under dual aspect science exploration and deliverables take on two
fundamental forms:
Laws-of-appear
Scientists are part of the natural world, like elephants. Scientific
behaviour, like elephant behaviour, has invariants across the entire set of
scientific disciplines (humanity) as for elephanity(!) = elephants behaving
elephantly. Not many invariants, but a few. One of those is creativity, for
e
> I don't think there is a problem with science, but only with some
> scientist (and alas with those who are often more refer too in
> popularization).
>
> Actually I don't believe in any scientific field. I believe only in
> scientific attitude, which is almost just modesty, along with
> curiosi
> I don't think there is a problem with science, but only with some
> scientist (and alas with those who are often more refer too in
> popularization).
>
> Actually I don't believe in any scientific field. I believe only in
> scientific attitude, which is almost just modesty, along with
> curiosi
. This idea predicts 'real' virtual bosons generated
at the membrane of neurons and astrocytes, orthogonal to the membrane, with
appearance that is private (imprinted on the space around the membrane (of
which there is a LOT - see above). The collective action of the blizzard of
v
so has the property of delivering appearances of itself to us
> > within which is
> > regularity that can be captured mathematically, with no residue, so
> > that
> > everything is full expressible in mathematical, structural and
> > relational
> > terms. (ie elimina
Le 17-août-06, à 00:17, Colin Geoffrey Hales a écrit :
> I'm after a real practical
> outcome. A recognition that science is mis-structured and we have to
> change. And sooner rather than later!
>
I don't think there is a problem with science, but only with some
scientist (and alas with those
ed mathematically.
>
> This is a combination of two claims:
>
> 2a) The universe is a structure properly-so-called of which we are a
> part and
> which also has the property of delivering appearances of itself to us
> within which is
> regularity that can be captured mathematic
Le 15-août-06, à 21:09, David Nyman a écrit :
>
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> 1), 2), 3), 4) are theorem in the comp theory. Note that the
>> zero-person "point of view" will appear also to be unnameable. Names
>> emerges through the third person pint of view.
>
> I'm beginning to see that, unname
Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
> LZ:
> >
> >
> > Colin Hales wrote:
> >
>
> >
> >>The underlying structure unifies the whole
> >> system. Of course you'll get some impact via the causality of the
> structurevia the deep structure right down into the very fabric of
> space.
> >> In a very real wa
2) The universe is a structure of which we are a part
and which also has the property of delivering appearances of itself to us
within which is regularity that can be captured mathematically as empirical
laws. By considering universes of structure capable of delivering appearances
we can then insist t
LZ:
>
>
> Colin Hales wrote:
>
>
>>The underlying structure unifies the whole
>> system. Of course you'll get some impact via the causality of the
structurevia the deep structure right down into the very fabric of
space.
>> In a very real way the existence of 'mysterious observer dependence'
rds 'associative memory'. You can literally replace
the word 'metaphor' for perception. The former has no intrinsic
experiential qualities (until recall) and the latter literally is
experiential quality.
This includes all scientific laws. Scientific laws correlate appearances
Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
> Perspectival Ubiquity
> From the perspective of any one instance of S(.) within the structure, no
> matter how huge and complex it is, there is a 'perspective' view of any
> other point in the structure. That 'view' is the view that is 'as-if' you
> walked all the wa
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 1), 2), 3), 4) are theorem in the comp theory. Note that the
> zero-person "point of view" will appear also to be unnameable. Names
> emerges through the third person pint of view.
I'm beginning to see that, unnameability apart, it's the 'indexicality'
of the zero-person p
Colin Hales wrote:
> Think about it...When you put the scientist back inside the picture, the
> measurement process (qualia) that literally are qualia is directly causally
> linked to the appearance you get!
The scientist has never been separate in that sense.
The question is *how* qualia are c
Le 14-août-06, à 01:04, David Nyman a écrit :
> There is another aspect, which I've been musing about again since my
> most recent exchanges with Peter. This is that if one is to take
> seriously (and I do) 'structural' or 'block' views such as MWI, it
> seems to me that whatever is behaving 'pe
David Nyman:
>
> Colin Hales wrote:
>
>> There is no dualism here. The simplest solution is a monism of a
posited
>> structural primitive, say, S(.). The universe is a structure of
organised
>> S(.). One type and one type only. The structure itself is simply and
necessarily a hierarchically organi
starting point is: given these experiences,
'from what experiential perspective would the situation look, feel,
sound, taste, smell, like this?' And the answer always seems to be
'from the point of view of the universe, delimited by these information
horizons.' This for me is the
David Nyman:
> Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
>
> > ASIDE, for the record, dual aspect science (from the previous post). I)
> > APPEARANCE ASPECT. Depictions (statistics) of regularity (correlations
> of
> > agreed 'objects' within) in appearances
> > I
Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
> ASIDE, for the record, dual aspect science (from the previous post). I)
> APPEARANCE ASPECT. Depictions (statistics) of regularity (correlations of
> agreed 'objects' within) in appearances
> II) STRUCTURE ASPECT. Depictions (Statisti
Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
> ASIDE, for the record, dual aspect science (from the previous post). I)
> APPEARANCE ASPECT. Depictions (statistics) of regularity (correlations of
> agreed 'objects' within) in appearances
> II) STRUCTURE ASPECT. Depictions (Statisti
dynamism, and hence can do nothing to help explain it.
>
========
ASIDE, for the record, dual aspect science (from the previous post). I)
APPEARANCE ASPECT. Depictions (statistics) of regularity (correlations of
agreed 'objects' within) in appeara
23 matches
Mail list logo
