Stahis said:
<snip>
> If you present an object with "identical sensory measurements" but get
different results in the chip, then that means what you took as "sensory
measurements" was incomplete. For example, blind people might be able to
sense the presense of someone who silently walks into the room due to
their body heat, or the breeze created by their breathing, or perhaps
even
> some proximity sensor that we have not as yet discovered.
>
> But even supposing that perception involves some non-local
> interaction (which would of course be an amazing finding
> on its own, regardless of the
> implications for consciousness), much interesting scientific
> work has nothing to do with the scientist's direct
> connection with his object of study. A
> scientist can read about empirical data collected
> by someone on the other side of the world and come
> up with a theory to explain it; for all he knows, the data
> is completely fabricated, but this makes no difference
> to the cognitive processes
> which result in the theory.
>
> Stathis Papaioannou
RE: "Incomplete" sensing
Sorry, Stathis, but no amount of sensory feeds would ever make it
'complete'. The sensory data is fundamentally ambiguous statistic of it's
original source. That argumant won't do it. The question is: what physical
processes cause the brain's field structure to settle on a particular
solution. That constraint is NOT in the sensory data.
Yes it will be an amazing result to everyone else. but me. I find it
amazing that eveyone thinks it could be anything else or that somehow the
incomplete laws derived using appearances can explain the appearance
generation system. It's like saying the correltated contents of the image
in a mirror somehow fathom the reflective surface of the mirror that
generated the appearances.
RE: Science
I know accurate science requires certain behavioural normatives. Effective
science has skill sets, individual characteristics of the temperament and
genetic propensities of individual scientists. I know it has a social
aspect. All this is true but irrelevant.
>From one of the metascience gurus:
"Science is not done by logically omniscient lone knowers but by
biological systems with certain kinds of capacities and limitations. At
the most fine grained level, scientific change involves modifications of
the cognitive states of limited biological systems".
Philip Kitcher, 1993
"The advancement of science : science without legend, objectivity without
illusions"
It's going to be fun watching the macro-scale electric field change in
response to different objects when the sensory measurement is demonstrably
the same. The only reason we can;t do it in brain materia is we can't get
at it without buggering it up with probes and other junk related to the
measurement. Our imaging techniques measure the wrong things.
It'll light up a light when the subjective experience changes. We can wire
it up like that. That will be a spooky day. I have to leave now. Merry
XMAS and 2007 all you everything folk...
cheers
colin
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Sun Dec 17 2006 - 18:54:36 PST