|
Hi, Tim,
Thanks for your efforts to 'reduce' your
Rosenspeak to the level of my understanding. After having been educated on 3
Rosen-lists over the past ~3 years, I think I follow. From your peasantized
wording: 'entirety' may refer to 'wholeness', what, of course, we CANNOT
'perceive and cognize'. (You have some mitigating remark on that, further down,
so my objection may be overruled.
The 'via
MRs' may be justified by that later part of your text).
Of course we cannot imply that in any MR we
end up with the totality: then we don't have a model: then we have the 'thing'
itself.
As you wrote: 'all that exists in the world' .
With the restriction I may think of 'all that we can observe in the world'
but you explained that in your graphix as observed and
not.
My very starting point is that we have no way to
"observe all".
Only to the extent of the capability of the
mind, interpreting - representing whatever made an impact upon it.
Otherwise:
we would be omniscient. We are
not.
(that may come as a shock
<G>).
The use of "noumenal" comes to your first
rescue: in my understanding it is compendial, without detailing, so in grouping
together 'nouns' into 'noumena', we
may include otherwise outstanding features (not only within our mind-content).
So the only remaining objection I can think of is the word "material", unless
you extend that into nonmaterial-material. Like: anything that can be called
"physical" (reductionistic science-_expression_). 'As I feel' (watch that
_expression_!) the adjective 'material' in the term "reality" makes it a limited
model.
I stand ignorant before the word 'posited'.
Realized? composed? understood-as? dictionary: postulated, suggested. If
we just 'postulate': it is weak, maybe so, maybe not, we would like it a way, If
we suggest: it is still weaker. But it sounds good to me.<G>
Perceptible reality however asks for
imperceptible reality, maybe virtuality, we have no access to. "Our" reality is
(only) the content (in a mind-representational fom) of perceived impacts. With
my usual caveat about using the word 'reality' (cavallierly) it sounds
redundant. So far the reformulated definition.
Then again: "subjective self" calls for an
"objective" self which is an oxymoron. Maybe you aimed at "personal self?" (as
opposed to eg. nationality or race feelings etc.) Self is 1st person, singular
or plural. "I" or "we".
Interesting idea your "reality-out there". You
are still within your own (self?) mind perceiving and interpreting that "out
there" thing,
Sorry, no matter how desperately we try, in our
thinking we cannot step out from ourselves.
Then comes Descartes. I like the 'longer
variant' we could read lately:" I think I think ergo I think I am" so the short
form does not represent a strong 'affirming' to me - as you implied.
In the definition of the MR - I apreciate the
"apparent reality".
I think that par (before getting graphical)
alleviate most of my hair-splittings. It makes complete sense even to me.
I wonder if you find it a true
translation when I put your graphical into my vocabulary (as I see
it):
[Tim]:
{noumenal
entirety} <----> {perceptible phenomena} <----> {sensory apparatus}
<==(MR)==> {knowledge of n.e. = totality of models of
n.e.}
[JohnM]:
{wholeness} <----> {observables to our
capabilities} <--->
{observation (sensory or ideational)
<==(MR)==> {(actual) cognitive inventory}
???
For the rest of your text: I am not in the clear
with measurements, (not RR, I have not read his description) I consider it - if
carried out quantitatively - a classical reductionistic process, assigning to
the model both to be measured and measuring as comparison, a strict cut-off in
ONE aspect from the rest of the world. The view of the model to be measured is
also reduced to the ONE aspect the comparison is carried out for. A good
_expression_ is 'abstracted', meaning a total exemption of the connections with
the world. The not-quantitative (as in: "you don't measure up to your father")
is a similarity-check with a little wider cut in comparative features.
In toto: your transformed explanation is fine.
Thanks, Tim. Don't be pissed off by my hair-splitting, we are in a poorly
identified domain and the words are inadequate mostly. Give it 1000 years and
the scientists will develop better meanings for expressions.
Thanks again
John M
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 10:24
PM
Subject: Re: Function and functional
organization
Hi John
M,
I'll try to give
an "English-like human
language" version of my statement:
'Material reality' is the
posited noumenal entirety, which we then presume to perceive and
cognize - in other words, via modeling relations - as being all that
exists in the
world.
The "posited
noumenal entirety" is essentially a condensed version of how I read Rosen in
Life Itself, sec 3B and p. 56. It is the idea that it seems readily
obvious - but is not provable - that there is a some kind of perceptible
reality. This makes itself apparent in the distinction between the
subjective self (affirmed by "cogito ergo sum") and all else that - from
this perspective of "self vs other" - appears to us as a reality
"out there". We posit that it actually exists and is not mere
illusion. On further inspection, we seem to be able (that is,
"we presume") to perceive the phenomena of this posited reality; but
even our perceptions are mediated by our sensory
apparatus. We also seem unable to know the reality in
itself: the latter is like Kantian "noumena". Put these
statements together, and we have "posited" + "noumenal". "Entirety" indicates
that the phrase refers to all of this posited reality, and the
generality of the word "entirety" imposes less limiting preconceptions than
"universe" or other possible terms. Thus, "posited noumenal
entirety".
The process of
perceiving and cognizing the phenomena of this apparent reality means,
essentially: the modeling relation process. Insofar as "modeling is the
habitat of all epistemology" [EL p. 324], the totality of all that we can
perceive and cognize thus represents the full extent of our knowledge
of this posited noumenal entirety. The totality of this knowledge is then
our basis for what we comprehend as "being all that exists in the
world".
Graphically, it
is:
{noumenal
entirety} <----> {perceptible phenomena} <----> {sensory
apparatus} <==(MR)==> {knowledge of n.e. = totality of models
of n.e.}
This leaves us
in a position quite removed from the "reality" we posit to exist and that
we want to study. It is a humbling position to be in. I think seeing it in
graphical form makes it more obvious to me how important is Rosen's book
"Fundamentals of Measurement", since measurement and its consequences and
limitations directly intercede and impact all efforts at
understanding "reality".
It also makes it
apparent that the full range of what constitutes "effective processes" is to
be found in the posited noumenal entirety, and thus our ability to make
models that capture these processes requires
that "the notion of effectiveness has to get imported into
language via modeling relations arising in material nature". [EL p. 160] That
is, that our modeling relations implicitly inform us
about effectiveness, and it is up to us to be aware enough to notice that
when our models are inadequate to the effectiveness they intend to model, that
we strive to create classes of models that can meet or approach that
effectiveness. That is what takes us outside the realm of computable
models.
I hope this
has made the statement clearer....but I'm not sure. :)
Regards,
Tim
My dear Tim,
all apologies gracefully accepted (ha ha).
(No need for them).
The homo-stuff : look up the
medium-size Webster, both -ousion and
-iousion are in. It is medieval Christian stupidity for which they killed
each other.
To your "explanatory" formulations: could
they be translated into some English-like human language?
And if you are graciously including all
the concepts in question into the 'material reality' whether or not
ambient mortals could consider it 'matterly' or not, why bother to add the
word "material" to it?
(Of course with "reality" I have other
problems, on lists of psych-philos-physics people I successfully proved that
it is virtual, objective reality is indeed subjective virtuality - 1991-4)
since all we (may) know is the
interpretation of the mind and we have no way to access 'that' reality which
allegedly made the impact on it.
But I let it go, call it 'reality' if you
like the word.
Your 'completed' version looks to me as the
MR is virtual and subjective. And "all that exists in the world" is
what we know of
(presumed?)
I could not give a better definition, but I
claim the right to criticize.<G>
Best wishes
JohnM
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 3:21
PM
Subject: Re: Function and functional
organization
Hi John
M,
Yep, I
screwed up. I did
not intend to make a division between "self" and "material reality", as if
self is - as you pointed out - outside of nature, somehow. That was
grossly in error. I'll blame it on posting too late at
night...but really it was plain sloppiness.
I also
apologize for getting lazy, and not always addressing my posts distinctly
to "JohnK" vs "JohnM". That was rude of me. :(
As you point
out, my formulation of "material reality" was too much of an
objectification(?) of our internal conception of it. After thinking about
this overnight, I might rephrase my view more completely as:
'Material reality' is
the posited noumenal entirety, which we then presume to perceive
and cognize - in other words, via modeling relations - as being all
that exists in the world.
So, with regard to question of whether
functions (or atoms, or whatever) are material or not (in this
sense of material), the question is then more fully stated as "Do the
effective processes in the posited noumenal entirety transduce
through commuting modeling relations into what we call "functions"
(or "atoms", or whatever)?"
Also, can you elaborate on "homousion vs
homoiusion"? I enjoy your philological abilities and I am unfamiliar with
those Latin terms and could not find a good reference on the 'net.
Regards,
Tim
|