Re: [Fis] Molecular-Experimental sciences (II)

Dear Pedro,

If living organisms are molecular machines according to principles we
currently understand then there is no explanation of experience
according to current "science of the artificial."

As Goranson says, "Most scientists assume that the basics of science
are known." The sciences of the artificial essentially adhere to the
view that our physical models are complete and that, where there lies
difficulty, explanations with the same essential properties as existent
theories will be available.

Roger Penrose has been pointing out the inadequacy of this position for
a decade and a half. As recently as January, in the journal Nature, he
says "... I perhaps have enough of the physicist's arrogance about me to
believe that a physical 'theory of everything' should at least contain
the seeds of an explanation of the phenomenon of consciousness. It seems
to me that this phenomenon is such a fundamental one that it cannot be
simply an accidental concomitant of the complexity of brain action. ..."
(full text: http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/TOE.htm). I agree.

I have only recently entered the fray. In my discussions across
disciplines I encounter three positions that violate the clear
principles of good science.

    1. Experience is not a phenomenon of the world and therefore
requires no explanation.
    2. Experience is an emergent phenomenon of the world that require
no further explanation.
    3. Experience is a phenomenon of the world that simply cannot be
explained.

None of these positions can be formalized since none can be quantified,
none can be verified and certainly none can be falsified. It is not
simply that the explanation is missing from physics and needs to be
included in physical theories - the explanation must also find its way
into the Foundations of Information Science and the Foundations of
Mathematics.

Logic has wrestled with the problem for a long time and failed (e.g.,
Peirce, Carnap et al.), but perhaps it is in the Foundations of Logic
that new ground can be broken.

The reason that these positions remain and are widely accepted comes
from a deeply rooted conservatism and a misguided belief that we are at
the pinnacle of our scientific achievement - it seems to me that any
such belief is, inevitably, the pinnacle of our ignorance.

The motivations for these violations in the USA are especially
unfortunate and I have discovered over the past two years that one of
the unspoken reasons they persist here is that many scientists and
mathematicians seek to "leave room for God."

In raising research funding I have to be careful not to offend
individuals with sincere beliefs in the traditional mysteries - and I
sincerely mean no offense - but there really can be no room in science
for such an allowance. We must follow science wherever it may lead and
allow it to inform faith, defining any notion we may have of God
accordingly.

For these reasons, progress may be impossible in the USA - even in my
beloved California.

With respect,
Steven

--
Dr. Steven Ericsson Zenith
SEMEIOSIS RESEARCH
Silicon Valley, California
http://www.semeiosis.com
 
Pedro Marijuan wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Trying to sum up the themes of my yesterday message (in this my second 
> post of the week), the emphasis might be put in the insufficient 
> theoretical distinction, real conflation, between:
>
> INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEMS
>
> PROCESSUAL LIFE CYCLES
>
> As a matter of fact, the latter have been caught under the wings of 
> the former as one of the core ideas of the "sciences of the 
> artificial" (eg, in whole disciplines such as artificial intel., 
> cognitive psych., artificial life, molecular computing...). Ideas and 
> philosophies of information have been imported and circulated into the 
> "sciences of the natural" without much trouble --aren't living 
> organisms but "molecular machines"? Even more, most of the rhetorics 
> under the banner of information society, knowledge engineering, 
> entrepreneurial information, etc., is also built around deliberate 
> confusion between the two realms --aren't we but info processing 
> systems?, why couldn't computers be conscious?
>
> Clarifying the relationships along the above informational blurred 
> boundary may be important ---perhaps by theorizing along the 
> processual characteristics of life cycles we could advance response to 
> some of the fundamental questions proposed by Ted about the fis agenda 
> (his report at <http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/goranson1> 
> deserves very careful reading).
>
> greetings,
>
> Pedro
>
> _______________________________________________
> fis mailing list
> fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis