Re: [peirce-l] Proemial: On The Origin Of Experience
I agree with that, Steven. We forget how many bad paths Einstein went down before he relied on a friend for key input when working on General Relativity. It's all in his notebooks from the time. John Professor John Collier Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal Durban 4041 South Africa T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292 F: +27 (31) 260 3031 email: colli...@ukzn.ac.za On 2012/03/13 at 08:38 AM, in message 5a506354-b312-4ebf-b5c9-7ee33401a...@iase.us, Steven Ericsson-Zenith ste...@iase.us wrote: Thanks John. If the right question is asked and understood, then the answer is readily apparent if the data that confirms or denies it is accessible. In effect, the answers are all out there, we need only craft the right question. Scientific interpretation of data is but a process of question refinement and this can be generalized to all forms of interpretation. Contrary to the common idea that interpretation is some posterior act. When we have the answer, we tend to forget the paths that either failed or were incomplete on our way to it. With respect, Steven -- Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith Institute for Advanced Science Engineering http://iase.info On Mar 12, 2012, at 1:58 AM, John Collier wrote: Professor John Collier Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal Durban 4041 South Africa T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292 F: +27 (31) 260 3031 email: colli...@ukzn.ac.za On 2012/03/06 at 11:03 PM, in message 4a39e6c5-939f-49ba-bc6b-8af976028...@iase.us, Steven Ericsson-Zenith ste...@iase.us wrote: I'm not sure I would say that the Mars lander computational analysis of data is interpretation. It seems to me to be a further representation, although one filtered by a machine imbued with our intelligence. Interpretation would be the thing done by scientists on earth. As a former planetary scientist, I would agree in general with this, but I also experienced new data that pretty much implied directly (along with other well-known principles) that lunar differentiation had occurred. (Even then, scientists had to interpret the results, but they were clear as crystal relative to the question.) I relied on much less direct data (gravity evidence and some general principles of physics and geochemistry) to argue for the same conclusion. My potential paper was scooped, and I hadn't even graduated yet. Both Harvard and MIT people in the field found my paper very interesting but lost complete interest when I was retrospectively scooped by firmer evidence. The moral is that nothing in science beats direct evidence, even the most appealing hypothesis. Nonetheless, your book sound interesting. Regards, John Please find our Email Disclaimer here--: http://www.ukzn.ac.za/disclaimer Please find our Email Disclaimer here: http://www.ukzn.ac.za/disclaimer/ - 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
Re: [peirce-l] Proemial: On The Origin Of Experience
Professor John Collier Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal Durban 4041 South Africa T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292 F: +27 (31) 260 3031 email: colli...@ukzn.ac.za On 2012/03/06 at 11:03 PM, in message 4a39e6c5-939f-49ba-bc6b-8af976028...@iase.us, Steven Ericsson-Zenith ste...@iase.us wrote: I'm not sure I would say that the Mars lander computational analysis of data is interpretation. It seems to me to be a further representation, although one filtered by a machine imbued with our intelligence. Interpretation would be the thing done by scientists on earth. As a former planetary scientist, I would agree in general with this, but I also experienced new data that pretty much implied directly (along with other well-known principles) that lunar differentiation had occurred. (Even then, scientists had to interpret the results, but they were clear as crystal relative to the question.) I relied on much less direct data (gravity evidence and some general principles of physics and geochemistry) to argue for the same conclusion. My potential paper was scooped, and I hadn't even graduated yet. Both Harvard and MIT people in the field found my paper very interesting but lost complete interest when I was retrospectively scooped by firmer evidence. The moral is that nothing in science beats direct evidence, even the most appealing hypothesis. Nonetheless, your book sound interesting. Regards, John Please find our Email Disclaimer here: http://www.ukzn.ac.za/disclaimer/ - 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
Re: [peirce-l] Proemial: On The Origin Of Experience
Dear Steven, That's what I increasingly thought after re-reading your thread-commencing post again after sending my post about it. You did not think the things that you at times had seemed to me to think. It was really about stylistics and word choice. In one case I noted that you had not literally said that which you somehow seemed to me to say, - instead you had indeed said the thing that made more sense - you had not said, as I somehow had thought, that a certain _discovery_ would impact the human species and the universe, instead you spoke of the discovery of _something_ that would impact the human species and the universe, and that thing was something on the order of nature's plan. How did I go astray? Impacting us sounds like something that a _discovery_ would do, not something that _nature's plan_ would do. Nature's plan does something deeper than that, it plans or plots us. I suppose that one could speak of something with radical significance for the human species and the universe. Well, maybe I'm too sleepy to make suggestions right now. Now, you have a right to expect a reader to attend to what you actually say and not just to vague impressions of what you say. But when one writes a book blurb, it's best to write it in extra-hard-to-misconstrue ways, as if the reader may be a bit groggy, like I am right now! Best, Ben - Original Message - From: Steven Ericsson-Zenith To: PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU Cc: Benjamin Udell Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 8:40 PM Subject: Re: [peirce-l] Proemial: On The Origin Of Experience Dear Ben, I appreciate your very useful response. I said the entire species and that the universe could not proceed, not the entire universe. So I would not expect the impact to fill the eternal moment, only localized parts. Similarly, I would hesitate to suggest that the entire mass/energy complex of the world could eventually be structured to become a single organism. It seems implausible 'though it is perhaps worth some consideration equally as a theme for a Science Fiction novel or as a potential solution to the dark-energy problem (I do, after all, propose a weak universe effect that may, I suppose, accumulate at very large scales to increase thinning edge-wise expansion). Your points, however, are well taken. If it continues in its current form I should define more clearly what I mean by proceed. For example: ... the universe itself could not proceed, could not further evolve beyond the stage that we represent ... Thanks. With respect, Steven -- 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
Re: [peirce-l] Proemial: On The Origin Of Experience
Steven, Here's a snippet from Boole that I think well illustrates his take on the relation between logic and the psychology of the thinking process. | In proceeding to these inquiries, it will not be necessary | to enter into the discussion of that famous question of the | schools, whether Language is to be regarded as an essential | instrument of reasoning, or whether, on the other hand, it | is possible for us to reason without its aid. I suppose this | question to be beside the design of the present treatise, for | the following reason, viz., that it is the business of Science | to investigate laws; and that, whether we regard signs as the | representatives of things and of their relations, or as the | representatives of the conceptions and operations of the | human intellect, in studying the laws of signs, we are | in effect studying the manifested laws of reasoning. | | (Boole, Laws of Thought, p. 24.) Boole is saying that the business of science, the investigation of laws, applies itself to the laws of signs at such a level of abstraction that its results are the same no matter whether it finds those laws embodied in objects or in intellects. In short, he does not have to choose one or the other in order to begin. This simple idea is the essence of the formal approach in mathematics, and it is one of the reasons that contemporary mathematicians tend to consider structures that are isomorphic. Peirce uses this depth of perspective for the same reason. It allows him to investigate the forms of triadic sign relations that exist among objects, signs, and interpretants without being blocked by the impossible task of acquiring knowledge of supposedly unknowable things in themselves, whether outward objects or the contents of other minds. Like Aristotle and Boole before him, Peirce replaces these impossible problems with the practical problem of inquiring into the sign relations that exist among commonly accessible objects and publicly accessible signs. • http://www.mywikibiz.com/User:Jon_Awbrey/PEIRCE#Formal_perspective • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Charles_Sanders_Peirce/Cache#Formal_perspective Steven Ericsson-Zenith wrote: Thanks Jon. Recall that my goal is ultimately a calculus for biophysics, in addition to a logic constructed upon it. Following your suggested approaches there is no way to bind the characterization of sense with response potentials. So, different goals perhaps. On Boole and Frege, I am using the titles of the books only to highlight the overall concern of the authors, rather than the particular approach of each author. I decided to avoid the psychologistic divide in logic in this short piece. I'll review that decision. Steven -- academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey word press blog 1: http://jonawbrey.wordpress.com/ word press blog 2: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ - 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
Re: [peirce-l] Proemial: On The Origin Of Experience
...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.uswrote: 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
Re: [peirce-l] Proemial: On The Origin Of Experience
Thank you Phyllis for the encouraging remarks. God is another term that I avoid, for the obvious reasons. I often wonder about Benjamin Peirce's influence upon his son's conceptions. He professed what strikes me as a similar, though more sophisticated, idea: that the force of will is a universal. I think both Peirce's were on the right track but prefer to see the inquiry as focused upon the foundations of the world, including sense, rather than explaining the mind of God, which is, indeed, an anthropomorphic conception. I'm not sure I would say that the Mars lander computational analysis of data is interpretation. It seems to me to be a further representation, although one filtered by a machine imbued with our intelligence. Interpretation would be the thing done by scientists on earth. The constructions I am considering, BTW, are living by any definition of the term I think. The distinction would be between those living entities evolved purely on the basis of the mechanics I propose and evolutionary theory, and those that exist or may evolve from, life produced by the intervention of intelligent species such as ours. Of course, noting that placement into environments in which life would not otherwise appear is an important criteria. Thank you for the stimulating response. With respect, Steven -- Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith Institute for Advanced Science Engineering http://iase.info On Mar 5, 2012, at 12:15 PM, Phyllis Chiasson wrote: Steven, I like this and do not think it at all overblown. I don't have my Peirce disk with me here in Tucson, but somewhere in it Peirce states that God could not have consciousness because consciousness requires the capability for sensation from which to experience and thus be conscious, something that Peirce's conception of God does not have. However, it seems to me that a machine could be thought to fulfill that requirement for a sort of consciousness as long as it possesses prostheses that enable it to experience its environment and some way of interpreting that experience. For example, the Mars-lander picked up (tactile) and analyzed (interpreted) the contents of materials and then provided that information (communicated) to scientists on earth. Yet, I suspect that you would encounter resistance from readers if you termed the sort of possibilities you are addressing as consciousness, as we are still a highly anthropomorphic civilization and many (though perhaps not your intended readers) may be insulted by the idea that such non-living constructions might be construed as conscious. Regards, Phyllis -Original Message- From: C S Peirce discussion list [mailto:PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU] On Behalf Of Steven Ericsson-Zenith Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2012 7:36 PM To: PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU Subject: [peirce-l] Proemial: On The Origin Of Experience 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
Re: [peirce-l] Proemial: On The Origin Of Experience
Steven – I haven't been following this discussion until now. I would just like to say that I love your 'ridiculously ambitious' attitude. (I have characterized my own efforts as 'ridiculously ambitious'.) The notion that 'philosophers will be put off' by such bold hypotheses just tells us that those philosophers are not really philosophers in the grand tradition. It was Popper who suggested the notion of the bold hypothesis – and as you suggest, even if it turns out to miss its ambitious mark, we will still learn from its pursuit. Popper's point was that most research is merely minor attempts to extend what it is assumed we already know. Funding follows the 'most probable hypothesis' – a very mediocre research policy. How boring!! Real advances are always revolutionary and they require revolutionary hypotheses. I look forward to reading your book. Terry P.S. I am very sympathetic to your line of thinking. I have a presentation entitled: The Other Theory of Intelligent Design. It is very Platonic – as in the Timaeus. The Architekton (Mind of the Universe) is a Master Craftsman working from a plan that is not 'copyable'.) Terry Bristol, President http://www.isepp.org Institute for Science, Engineering and Public Policy 3941 SE Hawthorne Blvd Portland OR 97214 503-232-2300, cell 503-819-8365 “Science would be ruined if it were to withdraw entirely into narrowly defined specialties. The rare scholars who are wanderers-by-choice are essential to the intellectual welfare of the settled disciplines.” Benoit Mandelbrot On Mar 6, 2012, at 9:58 AM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith wrote: = 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. - 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
Re: [peirce-l] Proemial: On The Origin Of Experience
Dear Stephen, Dover Beach is a beautiful poem, I love it. I assume that you are referring to Peirce's Preface to The Principles of Philosophy in the Collected Papers, correct? With respect, Steven -- Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith Institute for Advanced Science Engineering http://iase.info On Mar 6, 2012, at 3:56 AM, Stephen C. Rose wrote: This immediately raised the memory of Peirce's remark about surpassing Aristotle. We should probably create a grandiosity line in the sand for the rest of us. :) I recommend the Fugs Dover Beach (Spotify) as the requisite track to induce an appropriate humility without entirely deflating us. Cheers, S ShortFormContent at Blogger On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 10:52 PM, Catherine Legg cl...@waikato.ac.nz 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
Re: [peirce-l] Proemial: On The Origin Of Experience
I would agree with the general thrust of the comments that more specificity is needed early. The current text appears to be motivated by a question that it unfolds. I think that is a fine rhetorical device, however, it needs to unroll in a few sentences and then hit us with an answer very quickly. Jason On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 7:24 AM, Stephen C. Rose stever...@gmail.com wrote: I could not enter the text. The old journalistic *who what where when why and how* would perhaps be useful. Three or four brisk paragraphs addressing these questions. In this *adjective* study* name verb* *What* *Where* = into what stream of thought does this text fit *When* = past present or future *Why* = why is this needed - original - important *How *= The meat of the text - a CSP third - an implementation Cheers, S *ShortFormContent at Blogger* http://shortformcontent.blogspot.com/ On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 4:15 AM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith ste...@iase.uswrote: I will take the strong emotion to be both positive and competitive. It's a first draft cover piece and you are right to correct me concerning Frege's Sense and Reference, thank you. The mechanics of sense simply refers to the mechanism characterizing sense in biophysics, I assume that there is such a mechanism. Hence, I do not view sense as incorporeal, nor do I view the scientific mechanism as facing demise. You are, I know, an authority on the lack of substance (Aetherometry). :-) I appreciate your input Malgosia and will certainly consider it. With respect, Steven -- Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith Institute for Advanced Science Engineering http://iase.info On Mar 4, 2012, at 10:06 PM, malgosia askanas wrote: I am sorry, but this inflated piece of vacuous hype would forever discourage me from having anything to do with the book. The only half-way informative tidbit is that the book concerns a logic informed by recent advances in biophysics. By the way, On Sense and Reference is not a book but a 25-page journal article, and it has nothing to do with either the senses (such as sight or smell) or with making sense of the world. And what are the mechanics of sense; have we now extended scientific mechanism to incorporeals, just to forestall its demise? -malgosia At 6:35 PM -0800 3/4/12, Steven Ericsson-Zenith 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 ³intelligent designers² of life, extending life beyond the principles and necessities of arbitrary evolution, an inevitable part of nature's ³plan² 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
Re: [peirce-l] Proemial: On The Origin Of Experience
Steven, could you explain what you mean by sense in your post below (the sense for which you trust there is a mechanical explanation)? In your blurb, you seem to use the word in at least 3 different meanings. Talking about Aetherometry, I think you might find the Correas' book Nanometric Functions of Bioenergy, large parts of which address questions of the specificity and logic of the living, to be of considerable interest and relevance to your work. -malgosia At 1:15 AM -0800 3/5/12, Steven Ericsson-Zenith wrote: I will take the strong emotion to be both positive and competitive. It's a first draft cover piece and you are right to correct me concerning Frege's Sense and Reference, thank you. The mechanics of sense simply refers to the mechanism characterizing sense in biophysics, I assume that there is such a mechanism. Hence, I do not view sense as incorporeal, nor do I view the scientific mechanism as facing demise. You are, I know, an authority on the lack of substance (Aetherometry). :-) I appreciate your input Malgosia and will certainly consider it. With respect, Steven -- 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
Re: [peirce-l] Proemial: On The Origin Of Experience
Dear Malgosia, By sense I refer to the variety of differentiations of experience, be it the text book classifications, pain, electroception, or thought. I have only one meaning, one behavior, in mind. A more extensive summary of the work can be found at http://iase.info. If you are interested I will be happy to send you a digital copy of Volume 1 of Explaining Experience In Nature: The Foundations Of Logic and Apprehension that provides more details of my work. With respect, Steven -- Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith Institute for Advanced Science Engineering http://iase.info On Mar 5, 2012, at 8:37 AM, malgosia askanas wrote: Steven, could you explain what you mean by sense in your post below (the sense for which you trust there is a mechanical explanation)? In your blurb, you seem to use the word in at least 3 different meanings. Talking about Aetherometry, I think you might find the Correas' book Nanometric Functions of Bioenergy, large parts of which address questions of the specificity and logic of the living, to be of considerable interest and relevance to your work. -malgosia At 1:15 AM -0800 3/5/12, Steven Ericsson-Zenith wrote: I will take the strong emotion to be both positive and competitive. It's a first draft cover piece and you are right to correct me concerning Frege's Sense and Reference, thank you. The mechanics of sense simply refers to the mechanism characterizing sense in biophysics, I assume that there is such a mechanism. Hence, I do not view sense as incorporeal, nor do I view the scientific mechanism as facing demise. You are, I know, an authority on the lack of substance (Aetherometry). :-) I appreciate your input Malgosia and will certainly consider it. With respect, Steven -- 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
Re: [peirce-l] Proemial: On The Origin Of Experience
Steven, I like this and do not think it at all overblown. I don't have my Peirce disk with me here in Tucson, but somewhere in it Peirce states that God could not have consciousness because consciousness requires the capability for sensation from which to experience and thus be conscious, something that Peirce's conception of God does not have. However, it seems to me that a machine could be thought to fulfill that requirement for a sort of consciousness as long as it possesses prostheses that enable it to experience its environment and some way of interpreting that experience. For example, the Mars-lander picked up (tactile) and analyzed (interpreted) the contents of materials and then provided that information (communicated) to scientists on earth. Yet, I suspect that you would encounter resistance from readers if you termed the sort of possibilities you are addressing as consciousness, as we are still a highly anthropomorphic civilization and many (though perhaps not your intended readers) may be insulted by the idea that such non-living constructions might be construed as conscious. Regards, Phyllis -Original Message- From: C S Peirce discussion list [mailto:PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU] On Behalf Of Steven Ericsson-Zenith Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2012 7:36 PM To: PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU Subject: [peirce-l] Proemial: On The Origin Of Experience 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
[peirce-l] Proemial: On The Origin Of Experience
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
Re: [peirce-l] Proemial: On The Origin Of Experience
I am sorry, but this inflated piece of vacuous hype would forever discourage me from having anything to do with the book. The only half-way informative tidbit is that the book concerns a logic informed by recent advances in biophysics. By the way, On Sense and Reference is not a book but a 25-page journal article, and it has nothing to do with either the senses (such as sight or smell) or with making sense of the world. And what are the mechanics of sense; have we now extended scientific mechanism to incorporeals, just to forestall its demise? -malgosia At 6:35 PM -0800 3/4/12, Steven Ericsson-Zenith 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 ³intelligent designers² of life, extending life beyond the principles and necessities of arbitrary evolution, an inevitable part of nature's ³plan² 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
