Publius wrote:

Burdock Root wrote:

"andy-k" wrote in
news:ySHik.25957$8_2.18538@newsfe08.ams2:

No. As I said earlier, the UR is not a component of CR. It is an *a priori*
posit which invites and enables construction of a CR (a causal explanation
of the ER). That posit allows us to escape solipsism and supplies the CR
with a metaphysical foundation. The posit asserts, "Something X exists
which is the cause of my existence and experience." That X is the UR. We
know and may say nothing more about it than what is asserted in that posit.

Publius wrote:

I don't understand how there can be a *posit* (a_priori or a_posteriori)
that is not a component of the CR.

Burdock Root operamail.com> wrote in news:ac0cb0a0-43cb-453a-
8ea8-a86fe754d605@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

That is a bit vague ("penumbra"?), but I agree in substance. The
mysterians, of course, will want to know how a physical system manages
to "symbolize" that information in that particular manner ("Why doesn't
all this symbolizing go on "in the dark?"). They're entitled to some
kind of answer.

"andy-k" wrote in
news:sesjk.59192$Eo3.17083@newsfe14.ams2:

You may think of the posit as a component of the CR if you wish. I
prefer to think of it as a metaphysical precondition for a CR. But what
is posited --- the UR --- is the existence of something independent of
the ER, while the CR is understood to be a construct within the ER.

It is tested whenever any construct within the CR is tested (just as the
axioms of any deductive system are tested whenever any theorem deriving
from them is proved).

Publius wrote:

But your posit (of a metaphysical precondition for a CR) is a component
of the CR too, and so we still have a chicken-and-egg scenario.

This is "Burdock Root". Due to technical difficulties with Google
Groups, I'm having to borrow someone else's nic on this contraption, as
it provides usenet as part of the service. Thus the "storage" in the
name; that's all they normally use this secondary account for nowadays.
Extremely irritating and time consuming, because this system doesn't
automatically quote the previous post, with markers. I hope it at least
preserves the double spacings below when it appears, otherwise it'll
truly be a mess.

BR: In the glossary he provides on his home page site, Koch adds in his
definition of Qualia: "I argue that qualia symbolize, in a compact
manner, the vast amount of explicit and implicit information that is
contained in the penumbra of the winning coalition sufficient for one
particular conscious percept."

Publius: That is a bit vague ("penumbra"?), but I agree in substance.

BR: "Penumbra" should be defined in the same glossary. Time I finally
posted a link: http://www.klab.caltech.edu/~koch/glossary.html

other-roads@webtv.net (S T O R A G E) wrote in news:3268-489224A8-426
@storefull-3151.bay.webtv.net:

Yikes, that post must have been a bear to put together. I'll try to
respond to the main points.

It is more like trying to explain light by saying there is light (or
perhaps "proto-light") in all things, which just happens to be released
sometimes, from certain things but not others, without explaining what
distinguishes those things from others, or what is required to
"release" it. That would be a pseudo-explanation which is irrefutable in
principle, and which answers none of the substantive questions we would
have about light. It is an explanation on the same order as "goddidit."

"Burdock Root" here, wrapping up Part 2 of the last post:

Publius: Almost all complex systems exhibit properties which their
components do not exhibit and which could not be predicted from the
known properties of their components. A DNA molecule, and a few other
complex molecules, have the property of being able to duplicate
themselves. Atoms of carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, et al, do not.

BR: But this is not a radical type of novelty. Activity / behavior,
composites, and systemic-like relations between objects / regions in
public space was the case beforehand. IOW, explainable with what already
was; mundane emergence.

Publius: Atmospheres exhibit such phenomena as hurricanes, tornados,
jetstreams, which molecules of nitrogen and oxygen do not.

BR: But these are not radical novelties. Activity / behavior,
composites, and systemic-like relations between objects / regions in
public space was the case beforehand.

Publius: Were we not already familiar with those emergent phenomena, we
could never have predicted them, knowing only the elementary properties
of their constituents, because they occur in only a few of the
infinitely many possible combinations of those constituents.

S T O R A G E wrote: