From: Case (Case@iSpots.com)
Date: Thu Nov 10 2005 - 03:37:49 GMT
Scott said:
Do they account for the evidence that the data has changed, about which
understandings of the world are formed?
[Case]
That is what a paradigm shift is; so yes they do.
Scott:
Including the evidence that people experienced thinking as coming from
outside themselves as opposed to now when we think of thinking as coming
from within? I would say this goes beyond 'paradigm shift' as usually
understood.
[Case]
Our brains are capable of distinctly different ways of working. If you are
simply saying that as cultures become more complex it becomes a better
survival strategy to develop on the verbal mode. Then evidence of this
verbal mode will show up more often. But that this does not imply that the
other mode is not still available. It is a matter of probability
distribution of the traits. But really could use some kind of idea what this
shift is supposed to be and what is the evidence for it's occurrence.
Scott said:
I again made the mistake of using the word 'language', rather than
'semiosis', since obviously there is more to reality than English, French,
Chinese, and so on. What I am saying is that every thing/event is a sign.
It exists *because* it is a sign. Here I am working from the semiotics of
Peirce (together with an important observation of Barfield's -- see below),
rather than Saussure.
[Case]
Even adding the referent this is still a theory of language not of
consciousness nor even communication. Nor do I see how it is relevant to the
behavioral examples I listed.
Scott:
Are you saying you want to restrict the word 'sign' to words and sentences
of a human language like English? Anyway, I am arguing that where there is
consciousness there is semiotics. So now we're at the 'tis/'taint stage, so
to argue one needs to go at a deeper level, as below.
[Case]
So they co-exist?
[Case]
Ones reaction to thunder has nothing to do with signs or referents or points
of view. This startle response requires no previous experience to elicit. It
is more akin to the knee jerk reflex. It is in no way similar to a word in a
sentence. None of that processing is required in the response. Translation
of any kind may be fun post hoc but that's about all.
Scott:
Sure it requires previous experience, but life's experience, not that of the
individual animal. Why isn't a rock startled? Because the startle reflex was
developed at the biological level. It is a biological SPOV. Whether it is
similar to a word or not, is of course what we are disputing, so just saying
it isn't doesn't further the discussion.
[Case]
I submit that very little behavior is linguistically mediated. Try driving
to work in full tilt conceptual analytical mode. You'll be lucky to get the
keys in the car.
Signs, signifiers and referents are part of the post game show not the
leading edge of experience.
Scott:
Ditto all the above. Try getting the key into the car without having a
concept of what keys do.
[Case]
Hmmm, I think I will take tomorrow off.
[Case]
There is an extensive literature on how memory is processed. I was talking
primarily about biological temporal buffering but mentioned genetics,
memory, language and writing. The list could go on. Memory, in one form or
another, is precisely the vehicle that removes us from the spactio-temporal.
It provides a degree of random access. This makes us other than
spacio-temporal creatures. The smoothing occurs because that's what buffers
do.
Scott:
Sure, memory is the vehicle. My question is how is memory possible in a
strictly spatio-temporal world, that is, how could it come to be in a world
without it? From a world that consists only of chemical reactions, what
holds the memory of chemical reactions? Please note that I am not suggesting
that there is some substance in addition to chemical reactions (I don't like
dualism). I am saying that chemical reactions are the outward
(spatio-temporal) signs of a fundamentally non-spatio-temporal reality,
while you seem to be saying that chemical reactions can somehow create
memory. When you say "this makes us other than spatio-temporal creatures" do
you see this as being creatures in which non-spatio-temporality has been
added, or as fundamentally so?
[Case]
I don't know how many dimensions we consist of nor how many we operate in.
Since we are able to replay events both mentally and in a host of formats, I
don't think we are totally lodged in the spacio-temporal. While don't know
the number I am pretty sure there are others and they are here now not
waiting to be invented.
[Scott]
Barfield starts "Saving the Appearances" with the observation that we all
know that that which we experience (the contents of sense perception:
colors, shapes, etc.) are not at all like the entities that physics tells us
exist in the absence of perception, that is, quantum wave/particles. One can
also observe that what makes quantum physics weird is not that it is
paradoxical (there are no paradoxes in the mathematics that is used to
formulate it) but that what is formulated cannot be pictured. Now what is
picturable is the spatio-temporal. Quantum physics tells us of entities that
cannot be fit into a strictly spatio-temporal structure. From this we should
conclude that spatio-temporal structure is a product of perception, while
what feeds into perception is not spatio-temporal. In short, the familiar
macroscopic world's structure is the product of perception, and exists only
when perceived. We know this, remarks Barfield, but then we immediately
forget it when we ask "where does consciousness come from". We forget it
when we assume that consciousness is a byproduct of the brain's
spatio-temporal activity. In doing that, we are attempting to explain
consciousness with the products of consciousness (which Steiner refers to as
being like Baron Munchhausen saying that he lifted himself off the ground by
pulling on his hair).
[Case]
It seems to me that quantum physics confirms what we see in Macroworld: That
is there is plenty of uncertainty, so chose your metaphors carefully because
anything can happen.
Scott:
I don't follow. What does this have to do with attempting to explain
perception with the products of perception?
[Case]
Since we do this I am not sure I need to explain why we can't.
Case continued:
I see no connection between quantum physics and perception in what you have
said other than that you say they are connected. I do see that by our nature
we access our senses sequentially and memory only fudges the problem by
allowing us to randomly access the past sequentially. The fact that we
experience things sequentially does not make them sequential
Scott:
So we agree that there is non-spatio-temporal reality "behind" the
spatio-temporal that we sense? So I am asking: why attempt to explain
sensing in terms of the products of sensing? Or memory (that is, why attempt
to explain it as spatio-temporal neural activity)?
[Case]
Because any explaination that we come up with must refer to something that
two or more of us can agree upon. This places a number of restriction on
what it is possible for us to use fruitfully. In this case brain matter is
it. Whatever is happening cosmologically we can see it manifesting itself in
brain activity.
Scott:
Well, we know that the perceptual dimensions do not exist "outside" of
perception, since relativity and QM shows that they break down at the
extremes (very fast and very small). The only reason for thinking that they
do is by ignoring the Munchhausen fallacy.
[Case repeats]
I was not aware that physicists had settled on the number of dimensions so I
don't see how any of this is relevant.
Case continued:
But all of that aside for a second, are you or Barfield suggesting that
human consciousness is not dependant on brain activity of any kind?
Scott:
Yes and no. The difference between me and the materialist is on the question
of whether normal waking human consciousness is produced by brain activity
or whether it is regulated by brain activity. I go with the latter, that the
brain's role in human consciousness is to keep the senses aligned with each
other and with thinking in order to operate in a spatiotemporal manner.
[Case]
So you have advanced a theory that brain activity is regulated not produced
in the brain. But if is not produced in the brain where is it produced?
Scott:
Though here again, one must understand that the brain that we see (and
study), like everything else, is just the spatio-temporal sign of a complex
set of non-spatio-temporal SPOV. It is possible (that is, I see no reason to
reject the possibility) that human consciousness could operate in other
modes, without a brain, which is to say, it could survive death (though
whether one wants to call that 'human' or not is up in the air). I don't
know that it does, I just see no metaphysical reason to reject the
possibility.
[Case]
Unless there is something that three or more gathered in his name can agree
upon that would help guide us to a firm decision in this matter I go back to
tossing coins.
[snip]
[Case]
Since the amoeba's behavior can be entirely explained as a series of
chemical reactions. It hard to see what "amoebic intellect/consciousness"
adds to our understanding. Once again there is no habit involved. There is
not even the possibility of habit forming in a amoeba.
Scott:
This is more 'tis/'taint. I don't see how either of us can demonstrate our
respective positions strictly in terms of observing amoebae. My talk of
habits (borrowed from Peirce) is a way of redescribing biological data based
on a rejection of the materialism on which your descriptions are based.
[Case]
As I have stated previously materialism for me is a matter of
intersubjectivity. There has to be something there for us to agree upon or
it is just all speculation.
Scott:
I must have missed something. Who is Wolfram? Also, some of Barfield's books
are in print, including "Saving the Appearances".
[Case]
Steven Wolfram wrote Mathmatica software then spent 20 years using it to
explore various sets of rules to manipulate cellular automata. His book
costs like $45 and I figure I need the For Dummies version anyway. He uses
different rules sets to generate the Game of Life in three or more
diminsions. At least that's what I get thumbing through it. Rule sets can be
changed and certain rules sets produce highly dymanic self sustaining
systems.
You said a while back something about not putting much stock in Artificial
Intellegence. What about virtual life forms?
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 10 2005 - 04:12:19 GMT