.[Jim Dundon 08.27.06.8:10pmedst]
Thanks for that kind, thoughtfull reply. I also wish to say thanks for sharing life's
story in your recent post about your experiences during the 40's
[From Bill Powers (2006.08.27.1605 MDT)]
Jim Dundon 08.27.06 1540eds --
Your question assumes an external reality, but If the only way we
can know external reality is by modeling it, it follows that we knew
of no external reality before we modeled so why did we start modeling?
An interesting question. Before human beings started modeling, I
would assume that nobody thought there might be a world other than
the one we experience.
You are putting modeling first chronologically. It is prbably more accurate to say that modeling came in very close on the heels of wondering.
But to address Ricks assumption that no perception has more correspondence/objectivity than another to reality, what you are saying would preclude wondering and suggests that there is not a uniform correspondence between all perceptions.
So do you agree or not agree with Rick?
Other worlds have been discovered many times in the course of history.
They have been viewed by some as outside but not always. Why the
metaphor of external? Why not something else? Why not heretofor untapped mental resources. Is it not reasonable to
picture the entire experience, i,e.the labeling of these things as external as
an internal experience? All of the experience is taking place internally. It is all
taking place in my brain, even the notion that they came from outside. They came from outside my previous notion. Which means that Rick's notion of uniform correspondence is
What was it like to see a cause followed by an
effect, without even wondering how it worked? There must have been a
time when I didn't wonder, but I can't remember it. Perhaps that's
the basic origin of magic. The magician waves his wand, and the lady
vanishes. It's not that moving the wand set some train of events into
motion which opened a trapdoor that swallowed the.lady. The wand
directly made her vanish; that's the essence of magic. No mechanism.
As soon as there's a mechanism, there's no magic. Even if you only
think about what the mechanism might be, there's no magic.
As soon as someone asked how the cause produces the effect, modeling
started. Modeling is about guessing at mechanisms that we can't see,
under the assumption that there is always a mechanism even if we
don't yet know what it is.
Most if not all of what you cal mechanism is mathematical. Mathematics takes place in the brain not outside.
I hesitate to call simultaneous conditions causes of each other. photons are not the cause of light. They appear to be light , In reality [mine] they are the product of application of mathematicall parsing of experience. They take place, emerge, in our brains as the result of our using apparatus, in order to mathematize our experience. Neuronal activity and body chemistry changes do not cause behavior they are behavior. What I am saying is that this is internal and the conceptual notion of some of this as external is internal as well. This division is internal, metaphorical, conceptual and arbitrary.
That, I suggest, is where the idea of a reality that lies behind
experience starts.
Yes! It is a servicable idea. To help bring about changes in perception, which means that not all perceptions have equal correspondence all the time. Some perceptions must lag reality or we would never act to alter our environment, there would be constant zero error and we would not be here because we would never have evolved. You are saying there is no uniform correspondence?
If there is always a mechanism, but we can't see
it, where is it? A simple answer is that it's hidden behind or inside
something. In that case all we have to do is look in the right place,
or dissect the surface, and we will see the mechanism in the usual
way. That makes me think of the old automatons, which seemed to work
by magic but when opened showed us the strings and pulleys and gears.
Decartes imagined something like that when he proposed a model
explaining how reflexes work.
Great metaphoring!
But when science really started was when the proposed mechanisms
remained invisible, and could be checked only indirectly, and only
with some probability of correctness less than 100%. Sound, light,
electricity, magnetism, and even heat are explained by models whose
parts will never be experienced in the way we experience other
things. It became clear that we had only two choices: either there is
magic, or there is a whole universe of mechanisms existing somewhere
beyond or outside our experiences.
But outside our experiences does not mean outside the body or outside my nuerons. Most of this is mathematical and mathematics is the brain working.
That, I think, is where the idea of "external reality" comes from.
Yes, I agree it is a chosen term, metaphorical in nature, and somewhat arbitrary even though it is a good one.
That term refers to the universe of mechanisms that is forever beyond
our ability to sense them, so we can only try to guess, in a
disciplined, orderly, honest way about what might be the nature of
that universe. In my opinion, that's basically what science is about.
Your use of quotes around "external reality" here may indicate that you recognize your use this term to be metaphorical, in which case I can handle it quite easily, otherwise I need some answers to questions like. "what is the barrier made of?"
Is it not true that all of these descriptions of things as external are taking place as mental constructs internally, that is, in the brain? Is it not true that these are systems concepts, arbitrary, howbeit usefull, repeatable, mental constructs?
But lets close on the question at hand.
Perceptual objectivity/correspondence to reality; uniform or not?
best
Jim D
···
Best,
Bill P.