SV: Information and Natural Languages

Dear Koichiro

You write: "My observers are exclusively internal, even including
myself.
There is no such a non-observer out there."

I guess that all observers are internal to the universe? Aren't they.
Laplaces demon is dead.

Now everybody agree that an important part of the universe consists of
observers: the living systemseven in the standard scientific
(physicalistic) world view.

One of the questions is if we will ever be able to form a consisten
theory of the development of life and consciousness and thereby
consistent with our own epistemology in this ontology. I seriously doubt
it.

Are we not forced to consider all systems we observe as observing
systems? That means that a stone or an elementary particle is an
observer, but on a much lower level that languaging self-conscious
social humans. We recognize animals as observers on a lower scale than
humans. But so far the scientific world view has stopped there, mainly
because of physicalism.

Venlig hilsen/Best wishes

Assoc. Prof. Ph. D. S�ren Brier
Royal School of Library and Information Science, Aalborg Branch
Langagervej 4, DK-9220 Aalborg �st
Telephone: +45 98 157922 , Fax: +45 98 151042
Homepage: http://www.db.dk/dbaa/sbr/home_uk.htm
Ed. & Publisher of Cybernetics & Human Knowing
homepage: http://www.db.dk/dbaa/sbr/cyber.htm

> ----------
> Fra: koichiro matsuno/7129[SMTP:kmatsuno@vos.nagaokaut.ac.jp]
> Sendt: 11. december 1997 10:54
> Til: Multiple recipients of list
> Emne: Re: Information and Natural Languages
>
> Rafael, I was too blunt previously.
>
> >the question is what does it mean to be an observer? or, in other
> >words, what is the ontological status of a non-observer.
>
> My observers are exclusively internal, even including myself.
> There is no such a non-observer out there. This view however causes
> a lot of headache to us, especially with regard to their ontological
> status. Heidegger seems to have considered this problem seriously.
> Some Heideggerian in the States told me that Heidegger in his intended
>
> mysterious third division of "Sein und Zeit" tried to establish a new
> ontology based upon the present progressive tense. In other words, if
>
> everything is an actor or an observer in one way or another, the most
> direct means of its description is in the present progressive tense
> instead of in the present tense. I am quite sympathetic to the view.
> Incidently, that Heideggerian found such statements in the
> hand-written
> manuscript (roughly 200 pages) by Heidegger himself, kept in the
> library
> of the University of Marburg.
>
> Regards,
> Koichiro
>
> Koichiro Matsuno
>
>
>
>
Received on Thu Dec 11 13:18:19 1997