Re: [Fis] Joined in consensus - after all!

Re: [Fis] Joined in consensus - after all!

From: Stanley N. Salthe <[email protected]>
Date: Tue 19 Sep 2006 - 23:41:17 CEST

Commenting on Karl's statement below: Not quite --

>I will also take the opportunity to say that my point with formulating the
>realist's dilemma was to point out that a human being in principle is
>unable to produce a model of human perception on the basis of
>observation/experimentation.
     I am unhappy with this IF by 'human being' you go beyond the organism
itself. A culture can produce, say, machines that have capabilities no
human being has (X-ray, etc.), and which no single human can have generated
the theories involved. If we observe humans using a battery of machines
that materialize various theories, then we can say that the culture is
observing human beings. Scientific data about humans is of this kind.

>The human capacity of perception is the cause of this shortcoming
     Not shared completely with the culture.

>, which is then also a shortcoming of the experimental methodology - a
>fact that is seldom recognised. The brain-internal feed-back pathways of
>data (not information!) here play a decisive role. The human brain has not
>evolved to an instrument of truth replication at all - on the contrary the
>brain is magnificent tool of adaptation.
     But machines report the local truths they are designed -- by a culture
-- to record.

STAN
>
>
>Karl:
>
>
>The human brain has evolved to maximise reproductional chances (Darwin).
>Insofar truth replication is a part of increasing chances of reproduction,
>that brain is preferred above others, which do not, in the quest for
>reproduction, that recognises truth. Truth being a re-membered,
>re-cognised state of the brain, the process definitely has something to do
>with re-doing something (in the same fashion, over the same subject, with
>the same methods). Therefore we can recognise that our brain is biased
>towards recognising entities which are similar to each other. (That
>animal which recognises where it can feed and what to avoid has better
>chances of survival and reproduction than another which does not recognise
>similarities.)
>
>
>Arne:
>
>
>Well - back to our dawning consensus. When we are unable to make certain
>decisions by observation/experiments we are BOUND to decide by consensual
>decisions - and thus directed to a science based on social construction
>and consensus.
>
>
>Karl:
>
>
>The social consensus we observe is that similarity is the clever way to
>use the brain.
>
>
>Arne:
>
>
>To my mind (and Bohr's) there is only one - the domain of experience;
>personally constructed experience and shared/consensually constructed
>"experience" (or scientifically constructed models).
>
>
>Karl:
>
>
>In FIS we have constructed a common experience of trying to feel into a
>consensus that another clever way to use the brain is to concentrate on
>dissimilarities existing alongside similarities while organising into
>systems of thought-up, abstracted, experienced, etc. ways of using the
>brain.
>
>
>Arne:
>
>
>To my surprise it seems we finally landed on a platform of consensus ---
>and I fully agree with Pedro when saying the future will tell whether we
>are able to trascend formal analogies
>
>
>Karl:
>
>
>Why is there a need to transcend formal analogies? They are quite useful.
>Let us use the formal analogies that are there, time-honoured and
>consensual, but let us use them in a different fashion (alongside the
>usual fashions).
>
>
>Arne:
> & achieve a new, more catholic approach to information / and science as
>a whole/
>
>
>Karl:
>
>
>Why so timid? We are the catholic fount of veritas in things concerning
>the theory of information. Indeed, this group has evolved a concept of
>information that hasx quite many aspects to it. And to be more traditional
>as by explaining it all by the logical rounding error one commits when
>conducting an addition  I mean, what is less offensive than that?
>Catholic in the sense that it is all-pervading it is because it is rooted
>in numbers and counting; catholic in that sense that it is within a system
>of concepts and fits neatly  well, counting IS the core dogma of
>mathematics.
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>fis mailing list
>fis@listas.unizar.es
>http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis

_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Tue Sep 19 21:56:40 2006


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 on Tue 19 Sep 2006 - 21:56:43 CEST