Reply to Richard:
I do not wish to prolong the discussions since we are in a state of summing
up � but since you refer to my view I nevertheless feel obliged to point out
that you, to my mind, totally got hold of the wrong end of the stick
regarding this Summer�s FIS-discussions about scientific modelling.
RRRR: Coming from a different persuasion, I have to ask if Arne's remarks
apply only to one kind of informational context�an "experiential"
one. If I shift the focus to a biological context, where genes are
replicated and transcribed as digital information, I see no need
whatsoever for the human mind to project a psycho-philosophical
principle onto such non-human aspects of nature.
AAAA: You must not play trick on yourself. Since we are all knowers, in one
way or other, the �insight� that genes replicate by digital information is
just a model constructed by a scientific observer/knower in a biological
context and as such human experience.
RRRR: Maybe we are still reeling from the Anthropic Principle. When we
speak of information,
in my opinion, we too often stray into this "experiential" territory
and ignore other natural communicators that don't have experiences.
AAAA: Even if a defined entity lacks of experience, this very entity and its
method of communicating must be described by a model, which is also the
result of a knower�s experience.
RRRR: So, I want to know how THEY are communicated in space and time. From
my perspective, I might see genomes as confederations of selfish
genes and their alleles�entirely digital in their domain�operating by
some vague principle that may also apply elsewhere, perhaps even
gravitationally and quantum mechanically.
AAAA: All our knowledge about entities � no matter whether they are believed
to be real or unreal entities exists in forms of experience that are
condensed into
models.
RRRR: But a few still need to see things hierarchically, as if Mind or God
sits on top, pulling along everything that occurs from moment to
moment in space and time. Why should this be a first principle?
AAAA: The privacy of subjectivity is a fully (?) shared human experience and
therefore a useful one. Nobody doubts its validity. Since experience resides
in your mind the �pulling along� goes on in your mind � and nowhere else.
Without knowing minds there is no knowledge � neither private nor
consensual. However the starting point of human epistemology must be the
individual�s
personal experience � a base of knowledge that in the course of time can be
widened into social consensus. But not any further!
RRRR: Why couldn't some argument of parallel universes provide a better
explanation on what information actually is and how it is communicated in
nature.
AAAA: Well the SOA exactly highlights this aspect of human experience � that
there are as many universes (or rather priverses) as there are living
beings. This point of view is very useful and lacks of contradictions and in
this sense better. Unfortunately very few are willing to subscribe to this
view because they �like you - are brought up in the spirit of realism.
RRRR: Sadly, life in nature remains an embarrassing enigma for biologists,
physicists, and informologists alike. No hierarchical principle will ever
take us to a clear understanding of a biological kind of life that, for
billions of
years, needed no "personal awareness" by anyone in order to
continuously communication genetic information and evolve all sorts
of organismic "messages." And those ethereal digits outlived their
fleshy expressions by millions and millions of years.
AAAA: But I cannot understand how you can fail to see that this process of
evolutional recontruction is just another model made by a knower or group of
knowers. One might restate this saying by � life was there sure, but
knowledge=organised experience did not occur until the first mind entered
the scene.
RRRR: We are like astronomers before Hubble who observed the Milky Way with
a deep sense of mystery�evidence, perhaps, of heavenly meddling�until
the concept of galaxies was clearly understood. Suddenly there was
no longer any need for hierarchical models that invoke, tacitly or
not, a higher Communicator. For me, at least, not a lot of useful
stuff comes from the glorification of "experience" and the
castigation of "dualism." Something very important is still unknown
about what the "information of life" really is�if it is not digitally
genetic�and I am betting that when it is discovered it will NOT be
some kind of an "experience."
AAAA: This is just another model � living in the minds (experience) of
cosmologists.
AAAA: In a way you in your failing to see the experimenter�s/knower�s
dilemma highlights what the Summer�s FIS discussion and the Einstein/Bohr as
well as the earlier Boltzmann/Mach controversy is about - namely the
observer/knower�s capacity of finding out what is �really happening� out
there. My claim is that the human capacity of perception does not allow the
observer to find out what is �really going on� � and it seems also Andrei
and Pedro agree that this is impossible and therefore the knower MUST IN
PRINCIPLE be content with working with a MODEL of what is going on.
(Otherwise he in principle claims that the �out there� is in his mind, which
obviously is a contradiction!)
The observer cannot find out what is �going on out there� because his mind
is �wired up� by feed-back loops that effectively ruins the possibility to
reconstruct the �real� happenings �out there� as well as he is also unable
to from explicating the essence of �things.�
However there is no need of doing so in acts of prediction � because he can
very well predict what is going to happen in his experience to avoid the
dangers of �reality� � as long he has a useful model of this reality. By way
of probability reasoning we can make probable (not 100% certain) but very
probably (a belief) there is a �reality out there.� This is a useful
hypothesis � but the very problem for classical science is that this
�reality� is not directly knowable (or knowable by perception). No knower is
able to extract certain knowledge of �reality.� He must be content with
probable knowledge and furthermore this knowledge is accessible to him only
in the form of experience � he has no access to the �real world�
whatsoever � even if we generally think so and here lies the mistake!
When lacks of access to the �real world� � because of his feed-back �wired�
perceptual capacity � then it is in principle misleading to postulate two
different domains of scientific discourse. This is why realism with its
dualism is misleading. Once one understands that a scientific knower � as an
individual or a group � can do science very well in one single domain
(monism) one are also forced to take on the Subject-Oriented Approach �
which is a different scientific methodology that houses processes of
reversed causation and therefore confusing to a mind trained in the thinking
of realism.
Once monism is established there is no need of �information� as
communicators since there is only one domain of experience. Then information
is a descriptor (most often numbers) we use to specify (quantify) the type
of feel we experience (qualia).
Summing up: We cannot know what is �out there� by observation because living
beings do not have such a capacity. We cannot reconstruct a certain
�reality� outgoing from experience. Then it is misleading to speak of a
�reality� that we are able to know by direct acquaintance. We know �reality�
only as a hypothesis and a NAME � its features are hidden but we GUESS its
features by the use of scientific models. However these features just
reflect the human capacity to feel � nothing else. These guesses (models)
are later tested and confirmed against our personal experience � and against
our hypothetical(imaginary) reality. When the models work in prediction � we
classify them useful and stick to them � otherwise we modify them. However a
hypothetical reality is not a �real� one - it is a construction and belongs
to the mental domain!!! This is why some thinkers claim: �Reality is an
illusion � albeit a stable one !� Dreams are alike � but not stable � at
least not my! To my mind information is an interpersonal communicator �
data (numbers) we use to weigh human experience of otherwise unspeakable
feelings.
You must not think you, anyone else, or science can know what is �out
there� � without the use of a mind (experiential mind) � specifically your
own. This is why information has no mind-independent existence � information
is mind-dependent and depends on your personal experience. This is why we
have to join in consensus and �tune� our minds to allow for communication.
We do this by learning and coexistence � and by the use of languages
(models). We are unable to know what �really goes on out there� by direct
evidence. This is why we should prefer to choose monism since �out there�
does not exist in a monistic science � all you know is experience. And what
you cannot experience you cannot know � and neither speak of.
However to a scientist there is no need to speak and know about some
illusory reality � we can do the job of predicting coming personal
experience anyway � and do it successfully!!!
By the way, Andrei, I now see the need of conceptual �transformers� in
monistic communication. What is misleading, as I see it, is �information� as
a �mediator� between two different domains (real/unreal) � for the reason
this very distinction is misleading. But this might be the start of a coming
discussion?
Best Arne
Arne Kjellman PhD
Dept. of Computer and Systems Sciences
Stockholm University and KTH
Home-page <http://www.dsv.su.se/~kjellman/>http://www.dsv.su.se/~kjellman/
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Wed Oct 4 11:17:21 2006
