Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-10 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 09-mai-07, à 18:50, Brent Meeker a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 09-mai-07, à 09:08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : Of course reality doesn't change. The question of map versus territory is *not* an all or nothing question. *sometimes* the map equals the territory. Most of the

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-09 Thread marc . geddes
On May 9, 5:57 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How can Everett's every possibility is realized be logically compatible with Bohm's there's only one, deterministic outcome, we just don't know which one and Griffith's it's a probabilistic theory so some

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-09 Thread Brent Meeker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 9, 3:22 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Infinite sets and infinitesimals are a lot more than 'mathematical conveniences'. There are precise logical theories for these things (As I mentioned before - Cantor worked out

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-09 Thread marc . geddes
On May 9, 6:46 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 9, 5:57 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How can Everett's every possibility is realized be logically compatible with Bohm's there's only one, deterministic

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-09 Thread Brent Meeker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 9, 5:57 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How can Everett's every possibility is realized be logically compatible with Bohm's there's only one, deterministic outcome, we just don't know which one and Griffith's it's a

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-09 Thread marc . geddes
On May 9, 6:46 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But according to your map=territory philosophy all these incompatible theories exist physically. What does that mean? All but one of them must describe some other universe and we just don't know which ones? Or do you mean they

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-09 Thread marc . geddes
On May 9, 5:55 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But what is mathematics? It's three things I think: Categories, Relations and Propositions. Of these, Relations and Propositions refer to discrete (finite) knowledge. But Categories includes the other two, since categories can also deal with

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-09 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 09-mai-07, à 06:16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : It's true that consistency/precise alone doesn't imply existence, but they are factors that one can take into account. OK. But consistency of a mathematical theory having sufficiently rich models so that they support self-observing

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-09 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 09-mai-07, à 09:08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : Of course reality doesn't change. The question of map versus territory is *not* an all or nothing question. *sometimes* the map equals the territory. Most of the time it does not. This is an important point where I agree with Marc.

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-09 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 09-mai-07, à 09:08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : Of course reality doesn't change. The question of map versus territory is *not* an all or nothing question. *sometimes* the map equals the territory. Most of the time it does not. This is an important point

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-08 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 08/05/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well of course I agree with you in this case. 'Election' is a human construct. That's why it was a horrifyingly unfortunate typo on my point. The point is that if you try to apply the same reasoning to everything, you'll end up saying

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-08 Thread marc . geddes
On May 8, 4:22 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have now given three clear-cut exmaples of a failure of reductionism. (1) Infinite Sets But there is no infinite set of anything. Says who? The point is that infinite sets appear to be

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-08 Thread marc . geddes
On May 8, 6:03 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, but the theory is our idea of that partial match and is a human construct. As a human idea, the theory is something separate. But the objective reality of nature (whatever it is) is not something separate to the

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-08 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 08-mai-07, à 04:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : Say what!! this is not a valid analogy since the laws of physics are absolutely the fundamental level of reality, where as dsecriptions of chimpanzee behaviour are not. What makes you so sure. This is a physicalist assumption, and it has

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-08 Thread Brent Meeker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 8, 4:06 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 08/05/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Silly spelling error in my last post - I meant 'electrons' of course. Let avoid talk of 'electrons' then, and talk about 'Quantum Wave

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-08 Thread Brent Meeker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 8, 3:56 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 'The Laws of Physics' don't refer to human notions (they certainly are not regarded that way by scientists They are by the scientists I know. The *knowledge* we have of the

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-08 Thread Brent Meeker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 8, 4:22 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have now given three clear-cut exmaples of a failure of reductionism. (1) Infinite Sets But there is no infinite set of anything. Says who? The point is that infinite

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-08 Thread Brent Meeker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 8, 6:03 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, but the theory is our idea of that partial match and is a human construct. As a human idea, the theory is something separate. But the objective reality of nature (whatever it is) is not

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-08 Thread marc . geddes
On May 9, 2:37 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 08-mai-07, à 04:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : Say what!! this is not a valid analogy since the laws of physics are absolutely the fundamental level of reality, where as dsecriptions of chimpanzee behaviour are not. What

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-08 Thread marc . geddes
On May 9, 5:59 am, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So in the case of useful concepts there has to be a partial match between the information content of the concepts and the information content of reality. This means we can infer properties about reality

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-08 Thread marc . geddes
On May 9, 6:08 am, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 8, 4:22 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have now given three clear-cut exmaples of a failure of reductionism. (1) Infinite Sets But there is no

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-08 Thread Brent Meeker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 9, 6:08 am, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 8, 4:22 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have now given three clear-cut exmaples of a failure of reductionism. (1) Infinite Sets But

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-08 Thread marc . geddes
On May 9, 3:22 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Infinite sets and infinitesimals are a lot more than 'mathematical conveniences'. There are precise logical theories for these things (As I mentioned before - Cantor worked out the theory of infinite

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-08 Thread marc . geddes
On May 9, 2:37 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 08-mai-07, à 04:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : 'The Laws of Physics' don't refer to human notions (they certainly are not regarded that way by scientists - the whole notion of an objective reality would have be thrown out

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-07 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 05/05/07, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Reductionism eliminates emergence. Reductionism is the philosophy that all relevant properties of something can be explained in terms of the properties of its components. A weaker property is supervenience. Something A supervenes on the

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-07 Thread Russell Standish
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 07:50:21PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 05/05/07, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Reductionism eliminates emergence. Reductionism is the philosophy that all relevant properties of something can be explained in terms of the properties of its

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-07 Thread marc . geddes
On May 7, 4:06 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 07/05/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We have here a clear example of an indispensible *physical* concept which *cannot* be broken down or reduced to any finite lower level descriptions. This proves that

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-07 Thread marc . geddes
Silly spelling error in my last post - I meant 'electrons' of course. Let avoid talk of 'electrons' then, and talk about 'Quantum Wave Functions' then, since surely even Russell must agree that QM fields are fundamental (at least as far as we know). You can't say that QM fields are just human

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-07 Thread Brent Meeker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 7, 4:06 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 07/05/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We have here a clear example of an indispensible *physical* concept which *cannot* be broken down or reduced to any finite lower level

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-07 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 08/05/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Silly spelling error in my last post - I meant 'electrons' of course. Let avoid talk of 'electrons' then, and talk about 'Quantum Wave Functions' then, since surely even Russell must agree that QM fields are fundamental (at least as

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-07 Thread Brent Meeker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Silly spelling error in my last post - I meant 'electrons' of course. Let avoid talk of 'electrons' then, and talk about 'Quantum Wave Functions' then, since surely even Russell must agree that QM fields are fundamental (at least as far as we know). You can't say

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-07 Thread marc . geddes
On May 8, 4:06 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 08/05/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Silly spelling error in my last post - I meant 'electrons' of course. Let avoid talk of 'electrons' then, and talk about 'Quantum Wave Functions' then, since surely

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-07 Thread marc . geddes
On May 8, 3:56 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 'The Laws of Physics' don't refer to human notions (they certainly are not regarded that way by scientists They are by the scientists I know. The *knowledge* we have of the laws of physics are human

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-06 Thread marc . geddes
On May 6, 12:03 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 04/05/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems to me that 'coarse graining' could provide a means for time to 'stratify' into different levels. Now let me elaborate a little. Coarse graining is the

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-06 Thread marc . geddes
On May 5, 6:21 am, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree that coarse graining is of supreme importance to cognition, and this was bourne out in a conversation I had with a cognitive science researcher from the Centre for the Mind the other day. That's good news. Glad we

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-06 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 06/05/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Non-reductive materialism *doesn't* say that a person's person state could be different even though his physical state is unchanged. If it did, you are right, it wouldn't be materialism. In all forms of materialism, the person's mental

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-06 Thread marc . geddes
On May 6, 10:51 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 06/05/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Non-reductive materialism *doesn't* say that a person's person state could be different even though his physical state is unchanged. If it did, you are right, it

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-06 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 07/05/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Still, I don't think this has any bearing on reductionism. The scientific method is about how we are to go about discovering scientific truths, just as the adversarial method in a court of law is about how to decide guilt or innocence

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-06 Thread Russell Standish
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 02:06:36PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: I'm not sure that it is necessary to consider the laws of physics a separate ontological category. A zoologist might study the behaviour of chimpanzees, take notes, and summarise these notes in a paper for others to read

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-06 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 05/05/07, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Similarly, chimpanzees are names given to a certain collection of chemicals that happens to behave in a particular way. The rules of chimpanzee behaviour are fully emergent from the rules of chemistry. In your book you say that

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-06 Thread Russell Standish
Reductionism eliminates emergence. Reductionism is the philosophy that all relevant properties of something can be explained in terms of the properties of its components. A weaker property is supervenience. Something A supervenes on the physics of its component parts U if two different states of

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-05 Thread Mark Peaty
MG: 'There is no doubt that the nature of consciousness is closely associated with time in some way - but exactly how? The relationship between time (time flow and also causality) may be far closer than many realize. Could consciousness in fact be *identical* to time in some peculiar sense?

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-05 Thread marc . geddes
On May 5, 10:05 pm, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MG: 'There is no doubt that the nature of consciousness is closely associated with time in some way - but exactly how? The relationship between time (time flow and also causality) may be far closer than many realize. Could

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-05 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 04/05/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems to me that 'coarse graining' could provide a means for time to 'stratify' into different levels. Now let me elaborate a little. Coarse graining is the 'level of detail' at which we observe reality. If we observe reality 'with a

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-05 Thread Mark Peaty
MG: Well, again, this is a functional description of *some* aspects of consciousness with which we are familiar. I would say that consciousness in general does not require does not require a self model. Reflection on the motivation system generates self-awareness I think, but other types

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-05 Thread Russell Standish
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 03:07:54AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Been thinking about Bruno's often talked 1st person/3rd Person division. Had a series of insights that seem to connect up to some ideas of my own. Essentially my idea resolves around 'coarse graining' and the possibility

RE: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-04 Thread Danny Mayes
I think of time from the third person perspective as being simply a higher spatial dimension above 3 dimensional volume in the same way that 3 dimensional volume exists above 2 dimensional area. In other words it's really the same as the other dimensions. So your comment about 3 dimensional

Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

2007-05-04 Thread marc . geddes
On May 5, 1:59 am, Danny Mayes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think of time from the third person perspective as being simply a higher spatial dimension above 3 dimensional volume in the same way that 3 dimensional volume exists above 2 dimensional area. In other words it's really the same as