Dear John,
Recently I have found a nice statement from David Hume, one of the
greatest skeptics. Interestingly enough that Hume has declared that
"Nature is always too strong for principle", see below this statement in
the context:
"But a Pyrrhonian cannot expect, that his philosophy will have any
constant influence on the mind: or if it had, that its influence would
be beneficial to society. On the contrary, he must acknowledge, if he
will acknowledge anything, that all human life must perish, were his
principles universally and steadily to prevail. All discourse, all
action would immediately cease; and men remain in a total lethargy, till
the necessities of nature, unsatisfied, put an end to their miserable
existence. It is true; so fatal an event is very little to be dreaded.
Nature is always too strong for principle. And though a Pyrrhonian may
throw himself or others into a momentary amazement and confusion by his
profound reasonings; the first and most trivial event in life will put
to flight all his doubts and scruples, and leave him the same, in every
point of action and speculation, with the philosophers of every other
sect, or with those who never concerned themselves in any philosophical
researches. When he awakes from his dream, he will be the first to join
in the laugh against himself, and to confess, that all his objections
are mere amusement, and can have no other tendency than to show the
whimsical condition of mankind, who must act and reason and believe;
though they are not able, by their most diligent enquiry, to satisfy
themselves concerning the foundation of these operations, or to remove
the objections, which may be raised against them."
Evgenii
Am 26.04.2015 um 22:44 schrieb John Mikes:
Evgeniy, I, for one, like your approach on the Hoffmann-Prokosh
idea. In my terms (Ccness = REPLY (reflection?) to RELATIONS
definitely points to the Berkeley wisdom (to accept as existing one
must perceive the item, in concise Latin: *ESSE* (to include into our
worldview) *est PERCIPI*. Difference may be in faith-based religion
where ACCEPTANCE is also good enough. It may be an extension for the
Kantian 'revolution': our entire image of the WORLD (the Everything,
Nature, you name it) is the product of our mind. (And please, do not
ask what I mean by 'mind').
All our 'knowledge' about the WORLD(?) is the reflection of the human
mind on phenomena (items, processes) perceived in adjusted formats
available to the mind. No justification and no formatting to any
'reality'. That includes the Hoffmann-Prakash Psychology as well. (I
did not read the paper). JM
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru>
wrote:
Dear Brent,
I would agree that it is unclear what conscious agents introduced
in the paper have to do with human consciousness.
For me it was interesting to see that the cognitive science is
close to Kantian revolution (space and time are created by the
mind) and that Berkeley's "to be is to be perceived" (esse est
percipi) is still actual.
The next natural step for the cognitive science would be radical
constructivism.
Evgenii
Am 26.04.2015 um 21:35 schrieb meekerdb:
I think the authors are more interested in being provocative than
in being clear. For example:
/The interface theory entails that these first two steps were
mere warm up. The next step in the intellectual history of H.
sapiens is a big one. We must recognize that all of our
perceptions of space, time and objects no more reflect reality
than does our perception of a flat earth. It's not just this or
that aspect of our perceptions that must be corrected, it is the
entire framework of a space-time containing objects, the
fundamental organization of our perceptual systems, that must be
recognized as a mere species-specific mode of perception rather
than an insight into objective reality./ / //By this time it
should be clear that, if the arguments given here are sound, then
the current Bayesian models of object perception need more than
tinkering around the edges, they need fundamental transformation.
And this transformation will necessarily have ramifications for
scientific questions well-beyond the confines of computational
models of object perception./
There's no justification for the "mere". Our perception has
gone well beyond what biology provided. Nor is there any reason
to suppose that the transformation they propose will be THE
OBJECTIVE TRUTH either. / //Similarly, most of my mental
processes are not directly conscious to me, but that does not
entail that they are unconscious./
This just seems to make of muddle of what is meant by
"conscious".
Anyway, I'll finish reading it. I think an explanation of
consciousness based on evolution is one useful approach.
Brent
On 4/26/2015 1:22 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Enjoy. Evgenii
Donald David Hoffman, Chetan Prakash, Objects of
consciousness, Frontiers in Psychology, v. 5, N 00577, 2014.
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00577/full
“We develop the dynamics of interacting conscious agents, and study
how the perception of objects and space-time can emerge from
such
dynamics. We show that one particular object, the quantum free
particle, has a wave function that is identical in form to the
harmonic functions that characterize the asymptotic dynamics
of conscious agents; particles are vibrations not of strings
but of interacting conscious agents. This allows us to
reinterpret physical properties such as position, momentum, and
energy as properties of interacting conscious agents, rather
than as preexisting physical truths.”
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this
group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this
group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this
group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more
options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
