Re: Non Physical Experience

Don Mikulecky (mikuleck@HSC.VCU.EDU)
Fri, 26 Jun 1998 09:27:18 -0400


Don Mikulecky replies:
Let's try with a cleary mechanistic example. Please do not try to extrapolate
to
complex systems, but DO try to see what is involved when we do. Consider a TV
set. If it is all disconnected, in a box, you might say it is still the TV
set,
since the material constituents are all there. What is missing is the
connectivity, a special set of RELATIONSHIPS between the physical constituents.
Now we can connect it all together and it still does nothing until we plug it
in.
We plug it in, but no one is broadcasting, so we see no image on the screen.
Finally, we pick up a broadcast and see the image. Even now, we can replace
specific physical components (amplifier, tuner, power supply, antenna, etc.)
with
appropriate substitutes having distinctly different physical makeup and the
picture
will remain.

Here we begin to see the limited role the physical constituents play in the
overall
composite we call a TV set. The next step is to look at something irreducible
(complex) and watch the physical costituents almost totally fade from the
picure.

Norman K. McPhail wrote:

> Norman K. McPhail wrote:
> Now we have six "wild guesses" that I've tried to boil down as
> follows:
>
> 1. Walter Fritz thinks that we can get a computer to produce these non
> physical effects and that it can all be reduced to objective physical
> objects and processes.
> 2. Don Mikulecky suggests we use Rosen's catagory theory that deals with
> objects and their models as relational.
>
> 3. John Kineman proposes that existence and experience are one and that
> the becoming experience may be quantum related.
>
> 4. Norm McPhail submits that the qualities of non physical data somehow
> transpose into effecting physical differences.
>
> 5. Alexei Sharov considers it possible that physical existance is a
> condition or expression of meaning.
>
> 6. Sascha Ignjatovic postulates a Godhead/mathematics holistic system
> that may be analagous to infinity. He suggests that to understand the
> whole system, we ought to approach it from several perspectives.
>
> There are now six of us that are willing to take a "wild guess" about
> the nature of non physical pnemomena. With the possible exceptions of
> Walter and Don, I think most of us would admit that we haven't got a
> clue.
>
> At least some of us think that our guesses are pure speculation and
> conjecture. But as Don says, this is CENTRAL. So we're willing to go
> out on a limb to see if there might be some way to get at this forbidden
> non physical fruit.
>
> This is already a remarkable range of ideas. So perhaps we can go
> forward from here. Don says:
>
> > Sorry, what I have been talking about is far more than a mere guess. It has
> > been carefully developed (and ignored) for the last 40 years. It is
rigorous
> > and robust. For me it makes sense out of what we had to guess about before!
> >
>
> We could all go read the book, but that would probably be the end of
> this discussion. So perhaps Don would be willing to boil it down to a
> few main points.
>
> Then maybe we could take those points and edit them into a mutually
> agreed upon framework of sorts. From there we might proceed to discuss
> each of our individual notions.
>
> But perhaps this is to formal. Maybe we should just proceed and let the
> exchanges go without any initial framework.
>
> Don, why don't you take a poll and then take it from there.
>
> Norm McPhail

fire away!
respectfully,
Don Mikulecky