>What we call science relies entirely on the perceptual aspect,
>which includes what can be measured and computed AND semantic
>constructions. So I see a distinction also between the perceptual (which
>includes both physical and semantic) and the experiential, which seems
>uniquely characteristic of life. Perhaps we have a situation where both the
>physical and the semantic stem from (or are the complimentary side of) the
>experiential.
things into pre-determined categories. As if we sort all objects (or
records) by putting them on prelabeled shelves. Classic mechanics
assumes that all shelves can be occupied at least potentially. However
in biology this method does not work because most shelves remain empty.
Thus instead of measuring we need a DIALOGUE! In other words, we "ask"
an object to what shelf it whants to be placed.
Elements of dialogue are present in quantum mechanics. Observable
states are a small proportion of logically possible states. Thus,
a classification of elementary particles resembles more a biological
classification rather than universal laws of Newton.
The same thing is even more obvious in biology. Brute-force measuring
leads nowhere. Biological experiment is the art of asking right
questions. We want to know what organisms "know" about themselves.
What do they "remember" in their DNA and why. For example, you
will never understand another human being by measuring its weight
and height. This is the major difference in understanding perception
between biologists and most physicists.
>The simple
>act of comming into existence ("becoming," as in Eastern metaphysics) might
>be the root of experience, or the same thing. Our much more elaborate human
>experience could be the amplification of that elemental experience into a
>more complex form (as suggested by Niels Bohr). In metaphysics, the
>simplest form of experience is existence and is associated with the thought
>"I am." The problem, of course, is that such experience can only be
>explored directly -- through experiential means. Once it is explored
>perceptually or analytically it ceases to exist (or one is experiencing
>something else at that point - the act of observing, which if studied also
>transforms into something else -- the act of observing the act of
>observing, etc.).
I am glad that John brought this problem of existence. Physicists
deal with existing objects that can be traced in a phase space. On the
contrary, biologists always deal with life and death, i.e., interruptions
of existence. I published a paper in Russian about 20 years ago (oh,
my God, time is ticking!) in which I considered existence as a
condition of meaning. For example, insect wings may have various number
of veins. But the "number of veins" has the meaning obly if wings
exist. Wingless insects has no such characteristic. My idea is that
the category of existence is useful as delineation of meaning,
setting its boundary. Pure existence without parts and properties
could be an elegant philosophic idea, but I don't see any use of it
except as an abstract zero in mathematics.
When an new organism comes into being it already carries a lot of knowledge
with itself (the DNA). Of course, "genetic consciousness" is very
slow and it will take the whole life to interpret its contents.
Without this information, there will be no existence.
-Alexei
-------------------------------------------------
Alexei Sharov Research Scientist
Dept. of Entomology, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061
Tel. (540) 231-7316; FAX (540) 231-9131; e-mail sharov@vt.edu
Home page: http://www.gypsymoth.ento.vt.edu/~sharov/alexei.html