Re: subjective reality

From: Stephen Paul King <stephenk1.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 22:41:47 -0400

Hi Colin,

    Clap, Clap, Clap, Clap! Very good!

Onward!

Stephen


----- Original Message -----
From: <chales1.domain.name.hidden>
To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 8:40 PM
Subject: RE: subjective reality


>> From: Lee Corbin [mailto:lcorbin.domain.name.hidden]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 12:48 AM
>> John writes
>>
>> > Lee and Stephen:
>> > since we have only our subjective access to "out
>> > there" does it make any difference if it is "REALLY?"
>> > like we interpret it, or in an untraceable manner:
>> > different?
>>
>
> Colin the Control System (Instrumentation) Engineer says.....
>
> It's the old repeatability and accuracy issue again. Subjective experience
> can be considered to be a very elaborate measurement. People not involved
> in real-world measurement continually get mixed up as they don’t
> understand the difference between accuracy and repeatability.
>
> ACCURACY
> Extent to which a measurement matches and international standard.
>
> REPEATABILITY
> Extent to which a measurement matches its own prior measurement.
>
> For example the SICK DME 200 laser distance measurement instrument has an
> accuracy of about 10mm over 150m but a repeatability of 0.7mm
>
> Why does this matter?
>
> Because _within_ the measurement system is simply does not matter what the
> accuracy is! As long as systematic errors are repeatable, the systems
> behaviour will be repeatable. For example if the above instrument was in a
> warehousing system you are NOT interested in whether the crane gets to
> exactly 150.3 meters! You are interested in it getting to what it THINKS
> is 150.3 meters so that it won’t crash into the shelving! Systematic
> errors are quite ok _within_ a system.
>
> So, for subjective experience: Yes it can be an illusion, but a
> systematically erroneous, relentlessly repeatable illusion driven by
> measurement of the natural world where its errors are not important - .ie.
> not mission fatal to the observer. Experiential qualities, in their
> solipsistic presentation, need only be repeatable (my red/attached to the
> linguitic token RED), not 'accurate' (internationally standardized RED
> #12398765).
>
> This is equivalent to saying that the experience of HOT and the actual
> hotness of reality (wobbly atoms) _do not have to be intimately/directly
> related_!!! They can be completely different and as long as the experience
> is consistently used the behaviour of the experiencer will be the same
> "OUCH".
>
> Haven't we all asked 'is my red the same as your read'? Haven't we all
> concluded that we'd never be able to ascertain the difference because it
> really does not matter?...we all point to the object and agree its red....
> repeatability.... meanwhile the actual physical reality of 'redness' is
> simply irrelevant and may not represent any real quality of the observed
> system at all...
>
> I really wish mathematicians and philosophers and theoreticians would get
> out and get dirty in the real world some times..... half of the damned
> wordfest would disappear immediately.
>
> Grumpy today.... sorry.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Colin Hales
Received on Tue Aug 16 2005 - 22:49:33 PDT