Yes, indeed there is consensus. Let me go thru Arne's points about the
functioning of the brain so that we can deepen the consensus.
Arne:
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.
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
Received on Tue Sep 19 15:50:24 2006
