|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Burdock RootBurdock Root Date: Jul 22, 2008 16:57
Publius wrote:
>> A large forest can look like a solid green patch from orbit, so I take
>> even everyday objects to be the result of perceptual groupings of
>> smaller objects (or "whatever"). That is, there's a constructivism
>> behind the empirical world that precedes the constructivism of
>> abstract models. Therefore, I personally have no problem in counting
>> detectable atoms as a legitimate part of the phenomenal world like
>> tables and chairs.
>
> I agree that (specific) tables and chairs, along with atoms, are both
> constructs. But the former are empirical constructs, all of whose elements
> are qualia and the relationships among them. Atoms, however...
|
| Show full article (5.65Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: PubliusPublius Date: Jul 23, 2008 13:44
>> I agree that (specific) tables and chairs, along with atoms, are both
>> constructs. But the former are empirical constructs, all of whose
>> elements are qualia and the relationships among them. Atoms, however,
>> are not constructed from qualia (nor are the *concepts* of a table or
>> chair). Those
> They appear as "qualia" in the results that devices of detection
> present, even if maybe only as monochrome dots or the tracks of their
> flying parts in collisions. Extra-solar planets are discovered using
> instruments and inferences concerning the data, usually without any
> images of the planets at all. Electrons filmed for the 1st time:
> http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-02/src-eff022208.php
Sure, because we construct devices which will behave that way, according to
theory, when atoms behave in a certain way. But no one takes those visible
traces to be properties of atoms. They are properties of the phosphors
coating the display screen.
|
| Show full article (6.57Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: PubliusPublius Date: Jul 24, 2008 02:16
"andy-k" wrote in
news:60uhk.11076$ec5.2320@newsfe30.ams2:
>> No. You have constructed it. The others comprising the "we", along
>> with yourself, are early elements of that construct. You create an
>> external world and place yourself within it. Then you, along with the
>> others you have constructed, add more storeys to the edifice.
> Then we go around again: What is this 'me' and in which of these
> three realities does it reside? I anticipate your answer to be that
> this 'me' resides in the CR, and my response would be that as a
> member of CR (i.e. a construct), has this 'me' constructed itself?
> What we have here is a chicken-and-egg problem.
The "me" bootstraps itself into existence. The UR spawns a ROM and
generates a datastream, which will become the ER. (The ER and the ROM
together are the preconscious "me," or "proto-me"). The ROM commences to
resolve the datastream into a conscious "me" and a "not-me," thus
launching a CR. The "me" will then elaborate the CR --- it will concoct
explanations for both of those steps. (As it's doing here).
|
| Show full article (13.77Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Jul 24, 2008 09:22
Publius wrote:
> "andy-k" wrote:
>> Publius wrote:
>>> No. You have constructed it. The others comprising the "we", along
>>> with yourself, are early elements of that construct. You create an
>>> external world and place yourself within it. Then you, along with
>>> the others you have constructed, add more storeys to the edifice.
>
>> Then we go around again: What is this 'me' and in which of these
>> three realities does it reside? I anticipate your answer to be that
>> this 'me' resides in the CR, and my response would be that as a
>> member of CR (i.e. a construct), has this 'me' constructed itself?
>> What we have here is a chicken-and-egg problem.
>
> The "me" bootstraps itself into existence. The UR spawns a ROM and
> generates a datastream, which will become the ER. (The ER and the ROM
> together are the preconscious "me," or "proto-me"). The ROM commences
> to resolve the datastream into a conscious "me" and a "not-me," thus
> launching a CR. The "me" will then elaborate the CR --- it will
> concoct explanations for both of those steps. (As it's doing here). ...
|
| Show full article (17.68Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Burdock RootBurdock Root Date: Jul 24, 2008 13:37
Publius wrote:
>>> I agree that (specific) tables and chairs, along with atoms, are both
>>> constructs. But the former are empirical constructs, all of whose
>>> elements are qualia and the relationships among them. Atoms, however,
>>> are not constructed from qualia (nor are the *concepts* of a table or
>>> chair). Those
>
>> They appear as "qualia" in the results that devices of detection
>> present, even if maybe only as monochrome dots or the tracks of their
>> flying parts in collisions. Extra-solar planets are discovered using
>> instruments and inferences concerning the data, usually without any
>> images of the planets at all. Electrons filmed for the 1st time:
>> http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-02/src-eff022208.php>
> Sure, because we construct devices which will behave that way, according to
> theory, when atoms behave in a certain way. But no one takes those visible
> traces to be properties of atoms. They are properties of the phosphors ...
|
| Show full article (11.43Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: PubliusPublius Date: Jul 25, 2008 14:48
"andy-k" wrote in message
news:i%%1ik.26484$ec5.13739@newsfe30.ams2...
>> The "me" bootstraps itself into existence. The UR spawns a ROM and
>> generates a datastream, which will become the ER. (The ER and the ROM
>> together are the preconscious "me," or "proto-me"). The ROM commences
>> to resolve the datastream into a conscious "me" and a "not-me," thus
>> launching a CR. The "me" will then elaborate the CR --- it will
>> concoct explanations for both of those steps. (As it's doing here).
> Aren't you making a claim about the UR in violation of your prior
> warning?
Don't think so. We postulate the UR to supply a cause for that which we
experience, i.e., the ER. The CR (of which the above is a part) is our
hypothetical mechanism for how it accomplishes that. The above scenario does
not go beyond the premise.
(All of the CR is a hypothesis regarding the workings of the UR. But we
can't validate that hypothesis, or any element of it, by comparing it to the
UR. We can only validate it by seeing how well it predicts phenomena within
the ER. To the extent to succeeds at this, we accept it as a stand-in for
the unknowable UR.)
|
| Show full article (16.03Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Date: Jul 26, 2008 09:00
Publius wrote:
> "andy-k" wrote:
>>> The "me" bootstraps itself into existence. The UR spawns a ROM and
>>> generates a datastream, which will become the ER. (The ER and the
>>> ROM together are the preconscious "me," or "proto-me"). The ROM
>>> commences to resolve the datastream into a conscious "me" and a
>>> "not-me," thus launching a CR. The "me" will then elaborate the CR
>>> --- it will concoct explanations for both of those steps. (As it's
>>> doing here).
>
>> Aren't you making a claim about the UR in violation of your prior
>> warning?
>
> Don't think so. We postulate the UR to supply a cause for that which
> we experience, i.e., the ER. The CR (of which the above is a part) is
> our hypothetical mechanism for how it accomplishes that. The above
> scenario does not go beyond the premise.
>
> (All of the CR is a hypothesis regarding the workings of the UR. But
> we can't validate that hypothesis, or any element of it, by comparing ...
|
| Show full article (19.92Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: PubliusPublius Date: Jul 26, 2008 13:41
> And subjective properties aren't part of everyday things, either, in
> the objective domain of science. Evolution has constructed biochemical
> devices that represent them as having colors, odors, haptic "feels",
> sounds, etc. IOW, I don't see the reason for avoiding atoms being
> "objects" as if it's a sacred a priori game that can't be leaped out
> of into another game, like scientific realism (entity realism,
> specifically).
Atoms are definitely objects. They are just not the same type of objects
as trees or cats. (Different ontological orders).
|
| Show full article (8.17Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: PubliusPublius Date: Jul 28, 2008 00:13
"andy-k" wrote in
news:ySHik.25957$8_2.18538@newsfe08.ams2:
>> (All of the CR is a hypothesis regarding the workings of the UR. But
>> we can't validate that hypothesis, or any element of it, by comparing
>> it to the UR. We can only validate it by seeing how well it predicts
>> phenomena within the ER. To the extent to succeeds at this, we accept
>> it as a stand-in for the unknowable UR.)
>
> You seem to be saying that the UR is a product of the CR, but
> according to the CR the CR is a product of the UR, in which case we
> still have a chicken-and-egg scenario.
Late start, then interruptions again today. Will get at it first thing in
AM.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
