Andy,
I'm in general agreement but one comment. The cognitive model we or
any organism has of the actual external world (which is the entirety
of our experience of that world) consists of qualia which are unique
and private to the organism, but it also consists of a logical
structure amongst the qualia. This logical structure must in fact be
a reasonably accurate model of the actual laws of nature in the
physical world for the organism to be able to survive and function.
Thus it is the logical structure of our mental world model which is
closer to actual reality than the individual 'things' we think we
experience in the external world which are actually our own mental
constructs.
E.g. our mental concept of a bus is nothing at all like the actual
quantum reality of the bus, but the causal laws of getting killed if
we step in front of our mental model of the bus do hold. The logical
structure of that reality is accurate but the representation is our
own private mental construct.
Edgar
On Dec 2, 2008, at 2:55 AM, andy_morleyuk wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Edgar Owen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
> I'll let Andy respond since both of your questions refer to his
words
[...]
OK will do... see below.
> On Dec 1, 2008, at 6:42 PM, Mark Hubey wrote:
>
[...]
> > Perhaps you can explain to us what "direct experience" or "direct
> > perception" means.
> >
> > > We don't interact directly with our own selves any more than
> > > we interact directly with other selves.
> >
> > How would we "directly interact with ourselves"?
> >
> > Have you given much thought to what your sentences mean?
Yes - 'direct interaction' is an illusion, like that created by the
flick-
books some of us played with as children, like old-fashioned cine-
film that creates a semblance of motion through a succession of
still-frames and still does in its modern equivalents. So when we
interact with each other socially, we come up with all sorts of
verbal terms to describe concepts that which do not translate
directly into scientific language - the process of translation
requires
care and challenges the outdated verbal tools that most of us seem
to use.
As intelligent, social animals, we make our own subjective sense
of the information that we're presented with and that gives it a
'virtual', impressionistic meaning that is different from what is
actually happening. We've invented the concept of 'abstract
nouns' to convey all manner of impressions and feelings that
have varying degrees of real, physical connection with the real
physical world, but which are usually a fair way removed from it.
To try to explain one type of thing (the abstract) in the language
of the other (the physical) often does not work, unless you go about
it in a way that caters specifically for that difference. We are used
to doing it in areas like telecoms where we have a whole set of
languages to deal with different layers of reality - concepts such
as hierarchies of protocols, levels of abstraction and 'metadata'
to name but a few.
If you don't have such a formalised language for the subject area
that is also tried and tested (as it inevitably has to be in something
as critical as telecoms) then you run into difficulties. That's what's
happening here.
Andy
