On 4/1/2021 8:10 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Am 31.03.2021 um 20:16 schrieb Brent Meeker:
Yes, in general he sees the flowers where they are located (I don't
know what "physically" adds to "located"). He can reach out with
stick and accurately touch the flowers. He can throw a ball and hit
the flowers. If the lights were extinguished, then he could walk to
the flowers in complete darkness. So there is evidence that part of
seeing the flowers is locating them in his model of the world.
But it is also possible he has been deceived by a hologram of flowers
or he is delusional.
But none the above is affected by whether he accepts the modern
theory of vision or Plato's theory...which was Rovelli's point.
Let me first remind you that neuroscience rejects naive realism.
So does Rovelli. So what?
To this end, I have attached a picture from the book Jeffrey A. Gray,
Consciousness: Creeping up on the Hard Problem. It shows us that
signals from the external world come to the brain and all conscious
experiences results from brain's activity. So everything what a person
feels including "He can throw a ball and hit the flowers" is basically
generated by the brain (hence the name: Virtual world theory). Gray
puts it this way
"For, just like those inner sensations, that world out there is
constructed by our brains and exists within our consciousness. In a
very real sense, the world as we consciously experience it is not out
there at all: it is inside each and every of us."
When we speak about physical locations of objects - we speak about
something that on the picture is shown as "Real unperceived world".
When we talk about "He can throw a ball and hit the flowers", this
belongs to three boxes at the bottom (conscious experiences) and this
is clearly located somewhere else as the physical objects.
Do you agree with what neuroscience says? Or you prefer naive realism?
In my view the attached picture makes a big difference to what Rovelli
says. Yet, let us clear a position in the respect to the attached
picture. Do we accept it or do not?
Only philosophically naive neuroscientists reject realism . Gray
imagines that because perception happens in the brain (a material
object) that he can dismiss the physical world. The physical world is a
construct, but that doesn't mean it's unreal. Here's Galen Strawson's
explanation of why there is no "hard problem" of consciousness, with
which I mostly agree: https://www.academia.edu/397808/Real_Materialism_2003
Brent
Brent
On 3/31/2021 7:56 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
"Spatially separated"? By how many meters?
It is a good question. Let us start with it. So a person sees red
flowers as it has been shown in the colored part of the picture. The
person sees the red flowers outside of him. However, could we say
that the person sees the red flowers in the same position where the
physical object is located? How would you answer this question? You
changes in the picture do not give a clear answer to this question.
Evgeny
Am 30.03.2021 um 22:21 schrieb 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List:
On 3/30/2021 9:10 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> That is not at all what Rovelli says. You still see red, but
youhave
> learned that it is due to 564-580nm photons exciting neurons in
your eye
> (b) and not rays reaching out from your eyes to contact redness
(a).
I am afraid that it will not work this way. To show this, I have
attached a picture from David Gamez, Human and Machine
Consciousness, 2018. Primary and secondary qualities are not
essential, what is important that manifest world (bubble of
experience on the picture) is spatially separated
"Spatially separated"? By how many meters?
from the external world (black and white part). Photons from red
flowers belongs to the external world but a person sees the red
flowers somewhere else.
Which is completely beside Rovelli's point. Rovelli is comparing
two models of the external world that are both compatible with the
manifest world. Your cartoon version should be:
The spacial separation of the two worlds sometimes is referred to
as the virtual world theory (Gamez's book is good illustration to
this end). This directly follows from what you have written -
information comes into the eyes and it does not come out. So the
manifest world that the person sees is completely separated from
the external physical world.
That's self-contradictory. If it's "completely separated" then
information cannot come in.
One could claim that the external world is still similar to the
manifest world as on the attached figure. Yet the main point of
Hoffman's book that evolution must produce an opposite result.
No. His point is not that that it's the "opposite" of
similar...whatever that would mean. His point is that it's not
identical and necessarily so in order that it serve natural
selection. But the scientific theory of he world must be consistent
with the manifest world...that's what empirical means.
Brent
Science is just common sense writ large and pursued rigorously.
So provided we believe in evolution we must say that the attached
picture is wrong. Rather we should talk about pic. 2.7 on the link
below - that is, about a thing in itself.
https://www.openbookpublishers.com/htmlreader/978-1-78374-298-1/ch2.xhtml
Evgenii
Am 30.03.2021 um 03:29 schrieb 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List:
On 3/29/2021 5:17 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
Rovelli is a loop quantum gravitation maven. This is a very
ontological physics, and explains in part Rovelli's stance. The
though has occurred to me that maybe LQG states are the kernel
of some sort of target map. Either than or they are
epistemic/ontologically uncertain and in an epistemic setting
target map to zero.
LC
On Monday, March 29, 2021 at 2:05:33 PM UTC-5 use...@rudnyi.ru
wrote:
I have read Rovelli's paper. I am disappointed. What Rovelli
suggest is eliminativism. Red (a) (what I see) doesnot exist
but
red (b) (electromagnetic wave peaking near 564–580 nm) exists.
That is not at all what Rovelli says. You still see red, but you
have learned that it is due to 564-580nm photons exciting neurons
in your eye (b) and not rays reaching out from your eyes to
contact redness (a). Rovelli is replacing one conceptualization
with another...and telling us we should not become overly
attached to a conceptualization. I'm reminded of Lemaitre
advising the Pope to not tie faith in the creation to the Big Bang.
Rovelli should have read first:
Donald D. Hoffman. The Case Against Reality: Why Evolution
Hid the
Truth from Our Eyes, 2019.
I don't think Rovelli would have any argument with it. He
certainly doesn't hold that the manifest world, which evolution
has provided, is the real world. Physics is all about using
instruments and experiments and theories to find a more
comprehensive and consistent concept of the world that produces
the manifest world.
Brent
Evgenii
Brent schrieb am Sonntag, 28. März 2021 um 00:35:27 UTC+1:
-------- Forwarded Message --------
*The Old Fisherman's Mistake*
ROVELLI, Carlo (2021)
Abstract
A number of thorny issues such as the nature of time, free
will, the clash of the manifest and scientific images, the
possibility of a naturalistic foundation of morality, and
perhaps even the possibility of accounting for
consciousness
in naturalistic terms, seemto me to be plagued by the
conceptual confusion nourished by a single fallacy: the old
fisherman's mistake.
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/18837/1/Pescatore.pdf
<http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/18837/1/Pescatore.pdf>
Rovelli has it exactly right.
Brent
--
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
<mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/72677d11-ca95-4653-a487-8b0f8cebe8e1n%40googlegroups.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/72677d11-ca95-4653-a487-8b0f8cebe8e1n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0a69bbcb-cde8-d711-21d0-431b3ae7763a%40verizon.net.
