Re: SV: Information and Natural Languages

Dear Soeren,

I am not so sure if this is very helpful: to say everythink is a
potential observer seems to me like Teilhard de Chardin's idea that
everything (including particles) have some kind of consciousness, or
the (metaphysical) idea that everything is spirit or matter or
whatever. If you want to distinguish between different ways of being
an observer, then you must make qualitative differences.
If an observer is always 'an-observer-in-the-world' i.e. if there is
no place outside the world (or an absolute observer), there we can
say that observers are precisely characterized by their
'in-the-world-being'. This presupposes that other things which are
not observers but are also 'in-the-world' are not in the world in the
way observers are. By the way, we should reflect also that observers
are suppose to 'observe' i.e. not to actively intervene in the
processes they observe (although their observation is a kind of
doing). This is, I think, one week point of Luhmann's conception, as
it disregards the praxis. But the question again is, what does it
mean to be a 'doer'. Everything is doing something as far as it is
moving (this was the Aristotelian standpoint in his Physics, but
Aristotle differentiates very clearly between 'praxis' and 'poiesis'
and 'kinesis').
Cheers
Rafael

Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 12:54:12 +0100 (MET)
Reply-to: fis@listas.unizar.es
From: Brier S�ren <SBR@db.dk>
To: Multiple recipients of list <fis@listas.unizar.es>
Subject: 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 16:26:31 1997