Hi Rick.
Boeree said you were very bright and wondered what did you do? I have to say
this has been my favorite thread since I joined.
Here are his responses.
BOEREE
The only fully accurate response to all this is... silence! But how fun
would that be?
RICK:
I'm going to disagree here and propose that another 'fully accurate'
response is to recognize that our 'explanations' are not what they purport
to explain. It only with respect to this caveat that we can honestly
measure the value of various (and often competing) truths.
BOEREE: I agree -- we are just using "fully accurate" in slightly different
ways.
BOEREE:
We have to recognize that we are only "indicating" ultimate realities.
RICK:
Exactly.... But didn't he just say that this isn't really important?
BOREE: Once it's understood, we can put it aside.
BOEREE
...It is similar to Spinoza's idea of double-aspectism: Sure, we can
measure wave lengths -- but it is the quality of the sound (or light) that
is fundamental, that defines the sound. The measured wavelength is an extra
characteristic of the sound.
RICK
I agree with the notion that the wavelength is 'worn' by the quality (so
to speak--- or an extra characteristic as he puts it).
BOEREE: That's a great way to put it: the quantitative is worn by the
quality!
But this doesn't
really get us anywhere with respect to the tree in the woods. When the tree
falls, a quality is there for sure... but the issue is whether it's properly
called 'sound quality' before it's sampled by an observer that interprets it
as sound.
We are talking semantics here: I call it sound before its sampled -- you call
it sound after. I like to call it sound before its sampled because that
emphasizes the qualitative nature of it. It is something aesthetic, not just
some bland, colorless, toneless piece of matter, or even information. It is
sound. Perhaps we could call it Sound (capital S)!
RICK: For lack of a better example of my point... Imagine walking through the
infamous forest when a bat sweeps down from the trees and screeches at you.
The quality to you will be 'sound quality' because you interpret it as such.
However, to the bat, it's more like 'sonar/radar quality'. The quality that
we perceive as sound is perceived by the bat as distance. Same air wave,
totally different significance.
BOEREE: The bat "samples" a different portion fo the Sound. Or, even more, he
samples it in a different way -- more spatially, rather than tonally. But the
significance of the sample is where the subject comes in. What does the sound
mean to the bat depends upon his bat-nature and bat-needs (and maybe even his
bat-experience), vs our human-nature, -needs, and -experience. Food tastes
different when I am hungry than when I am full. I sample the Taste (capital
T) differently because of my different needs at one time or another. In a
sense I am tasting both Taste and my hunger or lack of hunger.
This is getting a bit complicated!
it's all good,
rick
Indeed!
George
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:48 BST