Norman K. McPhail wrote:
(snip)
> As Don might say, I think that thinking is a different function from
> awareness. And I think it serves a different purpose. Yet, thinking is
> also a non physical experience.
>
> However, thinking and awareness are inner experiences. We have lots of
> other inner experiences such as where our muscles are and what emotional
> states we might be going through. We can think about these inner
> experiences and be aware of them.
>
I can't help but mention Matsurama and varella's (sp?) "autopoeisis" here. The
mind
is a closed unity in their language. We do not do experiments or make
measurements
on it. We interact with it in very specific ways and it can lie or tell a
"truth".
Thus these things will always remain outside the usual scientific understanding.
Yet we understand them more thoroughly that what we achieve by scientific
methods.
We merely compartmentalize it all!
> Then there are all the experiences we have with data that is coming from
> outside our physical bounds. Still, these outer experiences are just
> non physical experiences. That is not to say that any or all of these
> experiences do not have a deep connection to physical structures and
> processes.
>
> Once a state has been determined, it is
> > "physical." Before then it is undefined "potential."
>
> I don't look at it quite this way, even though the potential aspect of
> experience must necessarily preceed an experience. I think if we think
> of a neuronal exchange of enzymes we can see that the enzyme must be
> released, have certain characteristics and have a receptor to attach to
> to convey data. All those physical properties must exist for the data
> to convey some part of a larger meaning. But the meaning itself that
> gets conveyed is semantic, context dependent and largely non physical.
>
> Our thoughts, though
> > they seem purely non-physical, thus require the recording of these events.
>
> Again, I think our thoughts are just a form of inner experience. One of
> the interesting things about our thoughts though is that they are
> paritially volitional. We can change and manage them in a variety of
> ways to help us anticipate all kinds of contingincies. Then these
> thoughts become a part of a whole range of experiences.
>
> Our thoughts are a special type of experience that we use to achieve our
> purposes. But we can use our thoughts to think about those same
> purposes and alter them in some ways. This self referencing quality is
> one of the things that makes us very different from most if not all of
> the other life forma we know about.
>
> Thus, we can at least to a modest extent manage the function of our
> selves. We can change our own function without external causes. This
> functional management and control is a complex system that I think is as
> different from life as life is from non living things.
>
> > The aware part of thinking is where we directly experience the creative
> > event.
>
> I think we can experience creative events withoug being aware of them.
> We are mostly no aware of the creative processes that we participate in.
> But yes we can also have the experience of being aware of a creative
> experience too.
>
> If, as I propose, experience is always a sense of the whole, our
> > thoughts are perhaps focusing on different levels or groupings of states
> > (data) and being "aware" of their wholism.
>
> Why doea an experience need to be a sense of the whole? There are many
> components of experience. I'm not sure we need to experience a whole in
> order to classify it as an experience. I guess I just think of an as
> experience as what ever it is.
>
> The apparent fragmentation of
> > this awareness (I can be aware of any range of things from a silly highly
> > specialized problem to the cosmic purpose of humanity or beyond) depends on
> > the collection of physical data we are capable or choose to be aware of.
>
> I think you are correct about an awareness experience. It can be
> automatic of volitional. And it probably depends on a lot of things
> including our history of experiences and the multiple contexts that all
> experiences take place in. Still they are not completely space/time
> dependant nor are they fully explained by the physics or the bioligy of
> the person in which they occur. So as Don would say, our experiences
> are not derivable from the physics or the biology of the context within
> which they occur. These are functional non physical things/events.
Amen!
>
>
> > Only if we could be simultaneously aware of all the data in the physical
> > world would our thoughts correspond to the ultimate conscioiusness.
>
> I must add that consciousness to me is a massive confusion of logical
> types. If you replace it with experience then I would say that "if we
> could be simultaneouly aware of all the data in the physical world, our
> thoughts might correspond to the ultimate experience."
Oddly we are going full circle here. Let's try to see this in the context of
the
modeling relation and classical measurement. We struggle to find a meter which
will
map a quality of nature into the reals. We use such meters to augment AND to
discipline our senses. We then feel somewhat objective. All the while the
information is carried to our brain where it no longer is subject to the
discipline
of the meter. Do you see the analogy?
>
>
> But in
> > direct experience, every experience of wholism is a reminder of this state.
>
> I think all experience is direct experience. But I do not take the
> pantheastic like view that the whole is in all the parts. Differences
> are differences. Just because at the quantum level we can't seperate
> data from energy, matter, space or time does not mean that all
> differences and quantum phenomena are identical.
>
> > Hence we seek beauty, art, understanding, power, meaning, etc. We become
> > inspired by the ultimate and try to apply it to the mundane (i.e., what we
> > are aware OF, vs. the experience of awareness).
>
> We use our free will to help direct our awareness. So I think this is a
> good point. We can use our free will to focus our awareness in much the
> same way we can focus and direct our thoughts.
>
> This view preserves my
> > objection to "data" in the undefined quantum goo and allows for a potential
> > equivalence between the presumed "non-physical" quantum realm and the
> > apparent "non-physical" thought realm.
>
> I've not responded to your earlier post but I look at these realms
> somewhat differently as you might infer from what I've written above.
> My simplist model of these realms is the physical realm which includes
> both the quantum and the macro physical universe. The realm of life is
> not other than these physical realms but at the same time it is more
> than they are. Don would say that this is a complex system.
>
> Then the realm of thought comes through these physical realms and yet it
> is more than they are. I say that the thought realm is mostly non
> physical because the meaning and semantic qualities of thought are its
> main function. This is not unlike the way the purpose of life is
> embedded in its replicative and interactive functions.
>
> The "information" is pure awareness,
> > but when combined with a data field, it becomes awareness OF something --
> > i.e., more limited but still reminiscent of reality.
>
> Again, I have a much narrower definition of awareness. In some ways it
> can be considered a function of the realm of thought, but there are many
> animals that are aware that don't think. And just because we are aware
> of something doesn't mean we are thinking about it or that we
> understand. I think that understanding is also a type of experience.
> But I think it is different from awareness, thought and all the other
> kinds of inner and outer experiences we have.
Rosen speaks of "anticipatory systems" as a class of complex systems. These
systems use a "model" of their environment to anticipate future events as they
"choose" their current behavior....Now if this means humans or organisms, we all
seem to be able to intuit what this is. However, we have as an example a simple
biochemical pathway in glycolysis. Now, if, as this system does, a system
posses
the capacity for anticipation, is it "aware" in some sense? Possibly so!
>
>
> > >> > so they
> > >> > are clearly connected. Is macro derivable from quantum? Yes, but with
an
> > >> > uncertainty relationship that is quantifiable. Hence the derivation is
> > not
> > >> > deterministic but probabalistic and context dependent.
> > >>
> > >> and quantum is derivable from macroscopic...Einstein knew this...as
Peusner
> > > has
> > >> shown. This is also an idea Priggogine develops.
> > >
> > >I would say that the quantum and macro differences are also qualitative.
> > >But that is perhaps just another way of saying that these differences
> > >are probabilistic and context dependent. Again, I am a bit confused
> > >about the relational aspects of the modeling derivations. If the models
> > >are derivable perhaps the natural system is not a complex system. Yet
> > >I think that is. So perhaps when I say that are the samd and differ at
> > >the same time, this is just another way of saying that the models are at
> > >once both derivable and non derivable. So what we may have is a fuzzy
> > >notion of derivability instead of an either or test of derivability. ?
> > >This is a question for you Don.
> > >
> >
> > I do not believe QM is derivable from classical laws. Perhpas Don could
> > clarify his meaning here.
> >
> > >
> > >> > Bohr sought a 1:1
> > >> > "correspondance" between classical and quantum theory but had to
> > settle for
> > >> > the derivability of classical from quantum, i.e., "consistency." If
> > >> > classical theory were not derivable from quantum, quantum would have
been
> > >> > rejected. A big debate exists over the ontology of quantum
indeterminism,
> > >> > not whether it exists or the fact that it is quantifiable. The debate
is
> > >> > over whether uncertainty is an epistemological issue (our ability to
know
> > >> > what causes quantum events) or a fundamental uncertainty in the
structure
> > >> > of the 4-dimensional universe. The difference is metaphysical, but the
> > >> > debate can delay acceptance of quantum uncertainty as an operational
fact
> > >> > in other disciplines.
> > >> >
> > >> > My suggestion about data is to accept the separation between subject
and
> > >> > object in the macro world (which we earlier agreed was relative to ones
> > >> > perspective) and that data are what connects subject and object (again
in
> > >> > the macro world).
> > >>
> > >> We have already shown where this division is artificial and destructive.
> > It
> > >> needs
> > >> to be severely reconstructed.
> > >
> > >I agree Don. I follow and agree with John up to the subject/object
> > >division. In fact, I think this division is a major contributor to what
> > >I call our human blind spot.
> > >
> >
> > Well, I'd like to agree too but want to be clear about what we're agreeing
> > to. Perhaps I can modify my statement (if it wasn't clear originally) to
> > say that I see the subject/object dualism as a part of the problem of
> > perspective, sensory data, and theory, not a quality of nature itself. I
> > agree that nature is whole, but our view (including but not limited to
> > science) is what is fragmented. This seems compatible with the idea of a
> > "blind spot," or in Biblical reference "seeing through a glass darkly." I
> > don't see how anyone can deny the subject/object division in theory and
> > models - that seems to be the streight-jacket we are stuck with, which is
> > why I say the model can't duplicate reality. Does anyone know of a model
> > that does not make this distinction or a view that says one is even
> > possible?? The reason I labeled the distinction as between micro and macro
> > is because we were discussing data, which again I think must involve
> > perception, hence the subject/object "blind spot."
>
> I agree generally. Our blind spot, as I use the rather imperfect
> metaphor, is in our understanding or our models. It is also important
> to note that the worst thing about this blind spot is that it keeps us
> from seeing just how blind we are. So the blind spot is both inner and
> outer. Hence, there might be a bit of confusion about the
> subject/object distinction. This artifice is mainly a useful construct
> that we use every day to deal with the physical world. To the extent
> that we also use it for non physical models, it can cause unnecessary
> confusion and conflicts.
>
> > >>
> > >> yes. and we only have access to these things through measurement if we
> > hold to
> > >> traditional science......this is why it is so important to redefine
> > knowledge
> > > in
> > >> the scientific context. The post positivists, constructivists, and
> > others did
> > >> this long ago.
> > >
> > >Don, in your view are we adding anything new and better what scientific
> > >knowledge is? I guess I ask this because there seem to be so many
> > >scientists who insist on sticking to the traditional interpretation. Do
> > >you see things as changing with all deliberate speed?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I'd like to comment on this. I think I agree with Don, but the statement is
> > vague about what the redefinition was, and it is not as though the matter
> > is settled once and for all. As you saw, I am somewhat critical of a purly
> > instrumentalist result of that redefinition, because in ecology and
> > evolution it tends to be used as an excuse to not embrace the full
> > implications of uncertainty. If, on the other hand, the implications of
> > uncertainty were accounted for in these fields, I think it would indeed
> > lead to recognizing something new in scientific knowledge -- the direct
> > experience of organisms, including ourselves, and the idea of experience
> > itself as a fundamental part of nature. On the methodological side, I
> > believe there are things we can learn about nature (and have learned) from
> > a careful and rigorous practice of inner experiential awareness (as in
> > Easern meditation, Zen, etc.), and that, again with caution and care, some
> > of this knowledge can be applied to other species and other aspects of
> > reality in addition to human experience.
>
> Aren't these all human experiences?
>
> That would seem to be a major
> > change in science. It is a change that scientific and religious
> > traditionalists fight vehemently for very good historical reasons, but the
> > time may have come for that to change.
>
> Good point, I agree. It is time for both scientists and all religious
> people of good will to take off the shackles that have bound them for so
> long. I think what we are talking about will give them the conceptual
> means to do just that.
This is a deeply seated human trait, this bonding to a group and its beliefs.
Are
we at all close to understanding it? I suspect that here is where innate
behavior
will become very important.
>
>
> The question, I think, is if we can
> > do a better job of combining these two sources of knowledge in the future.
> > I see the need for this cited often, but less said on how to accomplish it.
>
> Here! Here! I'm glad you raised this issue. It is not our main focus,
> but this, in my opinion, is one of the main benefits of whatever it is
> we are doing. What are we doing?
>
> Norm
regards,
Don