Dear Pedro,
Thank you for your surprisingly shameless and preemptive session closing.
This spares you a need to explain “freewheeling speculation” and to convey
actual intellectual content. I hoped for a better show of your intellectual
bravura, or perhaps, that was it?
Still, failure to incite my FIS colleagues to a worthy study of a “theory
of meaning” is *my* responsibility. Thus, I see Pedro’s post as inviting me
to make my closing notes. I now head toward into we may *actually* call
freewheeling speculation.
In my 13 July post, I note four items in Josephson’s talk. First is a
dual-material aspect. A dual aspect is so plain to me in developing my
model that I easily assert: models without a clearly named/unified
dual-material aspect must be ignored. They cannot answer Chalmers’s Hard
Problem or a data/symbol grounding problem – this is a “no brainer.” Life
is too short to spend time with lesser views. But I do not go as far as
Hector’s 29 June post:
> Shannon entropy should not even be mentioned any longer in serious <
> discussions about information, we moved on a long time ago (unfortunately
<
> not even many physicists have done) <
This assertion is equally naive. Gains from Shannon’s quantitative model
cannot be lost. The question is NOW more of how do we extend Shannon’s view
to *qualitative* roles? (Jerry’s undefined “punctuation”?) Still, to
Hector’s point, the 1920’s Cultural Legacy Shannon (1949) left us
(“disappointing and bizarre”) must be reduced to ash! The use of
“information” in any Shannon context must be replaced with “data.” Again,
life is too short to waste *more* time debating the issue – any striving to
impishly aggrandize one’s work by further fomenting false (disappointing
and bizarre) informational views must be TORCHED! We occupy the 21st
century, and only “forward thinking” will offer new gains (insert tired
Einstein quote). Josephson, even if crudely stated, correctly sees the
matter as a “theory of meaning” will define the 21st century! Anyone
failing to see this is too myopic to ponder “meaning,” unequal to the
challenge, or an intellectual coward . . . where we define ourselves by our
deeds.
But JUST a *dual aspect* helps little as it has no generative value. It
does not *even* reach to the level of a Hegelian dialectic, it cannot
explain evolution. And, if a “model of meaning” cannot improve dialectic
adaptivity it is surely meaningless! My model thus entails a
dualistic-triune view for *minimal* creative/evolutionary roles. Again,
“modeled meaning” that fails to frame creativity or evolution in *some* way
must be ignored. It is DOA (dead on arrival) with no explanatory power. I
have seen enough false leads here that I have no more patience or interest.
Josephson’s third point “that a new way of thinking is needed” should be
plain to any thoughtful individual (tired Einstein quote). But “new
thinking” that is not to be “new age” requires firm organizing principles,
rather than airy posturing. As noted before, “exclaiming a problem” does
not “answer the problem.” The hard truth is many poseurs, of all stripe,
reactively seek some “glimmer of glory,” while actually muddying the
critical thinking needed to realize a project; witness Brenner’s
long-defeated (dating to Hegel) and oft-repeated LIR plea. This concerns a
crass Cultural Legacy – Max Planck, asked about later acceptance of his
theory, is quoted to say “the theory was not accepted, its critics merely
died.” This is reframed as “Science advances one funeral at a time.“ All
Cultural Legacies creep to their death by dint of true mortality. But
without a true supportive/creative “womb,” acute gains then come only if we
seek fertile ground elsewhere . . . otherwise, we must resign humanity to
merely finding an inevitable evolutionary terminus.
Josephson’s third point that “a theory of meaning will likely displace
quantum mechanics (QM), as QM displaced Newtonian mechanics” is an
intriguing and difficult claim. I prefer a more watchful position, even if
I too see the potential. It is this disruptive role that *may* define the
21st century. Still, I have two reactions here. Foremost of what keeps me
from “jumping in” is that I am unsure of my own dualistic-triune view, as
it feels unfinished. There are many-but-limited ways to show a
dualistic-triune organizing principle. This speaks to basic “connections
and topology” that Josephson also notes, although he offers no model. Can
that topology be shown within an UTI? I am unsure, but many indicators
suggest the answer is “Yes!” Finding that answer lies at the heart of what
I see as a likely research project. My “start” at this research is entailed
in paper #4 – I hoped to see some worthy collaborators here, but none seem
evident? Per Michel – Alas!
The second part of my “watchful view” is whether a theory of meaning can
transcend quantum mechanics. I have looked closely (not exhaustively) at
quantum mechanics and quantum computing, and I feel easier about this
claim
