If you are within the same setup as I and we
both look at "the same" environment (including both of us) we will have
not-matching connotations of "it", pertinent to the two different experiential
mindcontents interpreting it.
Is this in some contradiction with RR or
anybody here?
You are in agreement with RR.
Skip
From page 3 of Life, Itself:
"Can arbitrary qualities (the stuff of perception) be
equivalently expressed in terms of a certain limited subset of elementary
qualities (those we can measure numerically)? If so, how? If not, what does it
mean to have a science of such qualities? What relationships can exist between
such sciences (if indeed, any at all)? It is clear that these issues and
others like them involve the deepest aspects of the relation between the
perceiving mind and the perceptual universe."
Judith
Which brings me to a big question. The par.
above preceded the arguments on several lists in the past years about the 1st
- 3rd person relations putting 'objectivity' in limbo.
What I am puzzled by, is RR's OK-position
about the 'sciences' in general and yet his devoted work with(in?) biology. Especially mathematical, using
all the incomplete cut limited model-quantities of the past reductionist
modelings within the topic - as derived in and by a "perceptual universe" past
'observations' and the belief system.
(As I see -generally not formally
accepted - , but in many cases agreed upon -
a 3rd person (accepted)
opinion (teaching, science, book-content, etc.) is the 1st
person interpretation of the acceptor based on the format which another person
provided
as HIS 1st person opinion about it -
maybe in form of an n^mth level of such transforms.
That is science 2004 - as I see
it).
John
M