|
JohnM,
You
wrote:
I probably
wouldn't use the phrase "part of it" *. As Judith noted, the partitioning
into self and other is fundamental for science to occur. But this is a
conceptual partitioning of the physical world by us, and just
because we can conceive of this clear dualism does not thereby entail that the
physical world can actually be studied as if they were two
fractionable pieces: a subjective observer and an entirely objective environment
of that observer.
If all observables or percepts are the
result of the physical interactions of at least two systems, then to be an
observer is to be in physical interaction with other systems. This
makes the notion of a subjective observer fractionable from an
objective environment an untenable position, unless one asserts a
priori that systems in isolation and environments of those systems in
isolation can produce no new behaviors when brought into interaction with each
other. But such an assertion is clearly (at least to me) false. This line
of thinking of observables as requiring system interactions also roughly
forms the basis of Rosen's book Fundamentals of
Measurement.
* I wouldn't use the phrase "part of it"
(where "it" refers to "environment") because to me that phrase implies that
the self/environment dualism is being maintained, at least
linguistically.
Somewhere....and
darned if I can find it at the moment....Rosen said something like 'the study of
organisms may be the study of inequivalent observers.' That, at least, is my
recollection. I thought it was in FM or AS but I cannot find it at the
moment.
Regards,
Tim
|