JJK,
my style....
>>...we plunge into the vagueness of a "wholeness" -thinking - >>which is
no thinking indeed...<<
Not as "the wholeness IS thinking, but us, exercising a "wholeness type
thinking" of what our present brainpower is not capable (at least as far as
I can think).
I leave it open that "the wholeness is an observer" since I propose some
better definition of the observer than the scientist sitting in his armchair
at the fireplace.
For an experiment to formulating such identification: to replace the
personalized "observe" by an (active? maybe not) absorption of (any)
information coming from anywhere and (maybe) responding to it????? the
wholeness gets info from its inside? Ok. It may even act upon it as
"observer"<G>.
Satisfied?
JohnM
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Kineman" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2004 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: models, sensory perception
> John M.,
>
> I don't follow the logic in your first paragraph, from thinking wholeness
> to not thinking at all. Are you saying the claim that everything is an
> observer is non-thinking?? Sounds like pure judgement to me. The view
that
> everything is involved in some kind of observership relation is a
> legitimate view that indeed allows an explanation of the facts we know.
> Whether it proves to be the best view or not is another matter, one for
> discussion, but to say who's thinking and who's not based on whether you
> like the idea is something I would avoid.
>
> JJK
>
> At 06:42 PM 5/26/04 -0400, you wrote:
> >Of course, I did not mean JJK and JM as "us", it is the process we are
part
> >of, from the old monkey on, as our science developed in its revered
> >reductionist ways. I would not include "everything" as observer, because
the
> >(living!) universe 'observes' a lot beyond our mindfill and so we plunge
>>into the vagueness of a "wholeness" -thinking - which is no thinking
indeed.
> >
> >I think we should refine (and change!) the term "observer".
> >I tried in another domain (consciousness of all terms) as:
> >"respondent to information" (in terms of a pan-sensitivity - not the
ominous
> >panpsych...)- including also materials, thoughts, -
> >which of course called for an adequate definition of information - not
> >Shannons, not entropy-info, not the bit, but a reasonable one.
> >I tried: an acknowledged difference, where of course I had to distinguish
it
> >from 'knowledge' (what is it?). And so on.
> >Anyway, the observer is not the sneak peeping Tom.
> >
> >Cheers
> >JohnM
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "John Kineman" <***>
> >To: <***>
> >Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 11:42 AM
> >Subject: Re: models, sensory perception
> >
> >
> > > Hi John M. I agree with the answers but they raise additional
questions.
> > > Below.
> > >
> > > JM: I would reply to the 1st part Q: From our reductionist views,
> > > including into our models only that much, (in most cases: what we
know,
> > > sometimes: what we select into the model) while disregarding
> > > (discarding, excluding) the "rest of the world" from our
consideration.
> > > So our model (system) is 'simple'.
> > > JK: That works, but only if the term "our" is expanded to allow
> > > everything to be an observer doing this. In other words, modeling
itself
> > > is natural and general. That is what I was comparing with the idea in
> > > physics called decoherence, which is presently their best guess as to
> > > what is going on too.
> > >
> > > JM: To the 2nd part of the Q: in viewving 'living systems' -
ourselves -
> > > we coulnot cut off aspects of not yet discovered
> > > explanations/understanding. They are "us". Beyond the 'awe' of the -
for
> > > us - unexplainable "complexity" that could not go unobserved, there
were
> > > (are) attempts for such an abstraction/simplification in modern
> >science:...
> > > JK: Yes, I quite agree, and again for this answer to work generally
the
> > > definition of "us" has to be broadened to include everything as an
> > > observer. It then means there is a natural process, which we know as
> > > modeling, included in nature that provides it with a continuous
> > > knowledge not only of its present simplifications (abstractions) but
of
> > > the whole of possibilities. This is a holonomic concept, without which
> > > any change in models would be impossible (because they would know
"know"
> > > about other states). It implies a system concept whereby natural
systems
> > > retain both particulate and whole knowledge simultaneously, as we
> > > imagine that we do beging "intelligent" beings capable of "thought."
> > > Thought may be little more than an elaborate use of such a natural
> > > ability (modeling) whereby a sense of the whole is retained in any
> > > particular realization. This would explain what it means to say that
> > > states are abstractions that in reality retain more complex aspects.
The
> > > retention of other possibilities would be like retaining a "thought"
of
> > > other states. I am particularly fascinated with this view because it
> > > puts "knowing" into nature, rather than separating natural knowledge
out
> > > to a mathematically Platonic realm where "natural laws" exist in some
> > > pure independent form. The idea is quite opposed, then, to the entire
> > > paradigm of "mechanistic" science in that precise way.