[Fis] Joined in consensus - after all?

It seems we have made a lot of progress (at an almost tacit level?) during these discussions and come to a point of consensus after all. Andrei's your concluding reply to Pedro accepting the " the necessarily \"social\" construction of human knowledge..." and the need of "neuromathematics" point in that direction. However I think Andrei's use of the word "objective" is a bit bewildering. If you say <<transformers of information>> are not less CONSENSUAL than electrons or photons then I think you, Pedro and I are fully agreed.

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. The human capacity of perception is the cause of this shortcoming, 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.

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. There is no other way out. However social constructs are not different from personal constructs in another way that they are the result of group or personal decisions respective. This insight once more connect us to the real/unreal issue that also must be decided in a state of consensus - simply because we unable to do this experimentally. This is why the real/unreal distinction is unscientific. However we can decide together that there is a real world - but this is not what scientists in general mean by a scientific decision! The proposal at the fundaments of science that there are two different domains - the real and the mental - is however deeply misleading. 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).
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
between realms and achieve a new, more catholic approach to information / and science as a whole/ --none of the current approaches has achieved a breakthrough yet, and so the need for our exchange of views!

Arne

    
Arne Kjellman PhD
     
Dept. of Computer and Systems Sciences
Stockholm University and KTH
Forum 100
S-164 40 Kista
SWEDEN
 
For direct correspondence use this address:
Skrangstabodarna 140
S-852 96 Sundsvall SWEDEN
 
phone +46-60 36430
 

Home-page http://www.dsv.su.se/~kjellman/

_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Fri Sep 15 09:24:07 2006