Re: The Reality of Observer Moments

From: Stephen Paul King <stephenk1.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 20:55:18 -0400

Hi Lee,

    I would like for you to consider that we should not take OMs as
"objective processes" but the result of "objective processes". I shudder
every time I read of notions that imply some kind of knowledge of "reality
in itself"!
    How is it that we simply can not seem to acknowledge what we can not
know Existence in-itself and merely must rely upon logical rules, gleamed
from multiple attempts, to figure out good models of "what we think is going
on" and not try to fool ourselves that we can somehow abstract away
ourselves from our deliberations about the nature of *Reality*?

    Let me try to boil this down a little, how is it even consistent to
claim that some "set of states" completely represents a "process"? The
assumption here seems to beg us to assume that a static representation can
faithfully capture all of the transitive properties implicit in the notion
of process. For me this is equivalent to claiming that Becoming can be
derived from Being. I would truly like someone to explain this idea to me!
>From what I can figure it is easy to show how Being can derive from
Becoming, so why the kicking against the pricks trying to go backwards?

Onward!

Stephen

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Corbin" <lcorbin.domain.name.hidden>
To: "EverythingList" <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 5:07 PM
Subject: The Reality of Observer Moments


>I wish to emphasize that according to a traditional realist's
> beliefs, observer moments are objective and real, and hence
> do exist, so that there is nothing objectionable about speculations
> concerning them.
>
> Suppose that a mouse during some small time delta t is in
> a particular state (or set of states, if you wish to be picky).
> In the objective tradition we do not next inquire about what
> it seems like to the mouse, or what the mouse (read human)
> could report or recall about the moment, or whether this moment
> is "the same to the mouse" as some other moment. Instead, we
> suppose that at very *least* the entire brain state is what
> gives rise to the observer moment as a purely physical or
> ideal process.
>
> (In all likelihood, much less than the whole brain is required,
> but so far 21st century science can only speculate on what the
> proper subset of functioning is, or what the proper *calculation*
> is that's going on in those neurons which would be appropriate to
> use as the "observer moment".)
>
> Since there is *some* objective process taking place, it must be
> the case that this same, identical process is taking place at
> other times and places. At this point I would usually branch off
> and discuss the total benefit accruing to the mouse-person, but
> it's really a different topic.
>
> The final word: OMs can be viewed as objective processes, and
> efforts to find the simplest explanation considering Everything
> seem quite appropriate.
>
> Lee
Received on Sun Aug 14 2005 - 20:56:42 PDT