Greetings to all,
This A Priori Modeling session began Thursday, 16 June, and today marks
four weeks. As “session leader” some meta-comments seem needed. In gauging
our progress, a sense akin to that in Terry Deacon’s 30 Jan 2015 post comes
to mind:
> . . . I haven't felt that the specific components of <
> this proposal have been addressed in this thread. <
• Likewise, I feel frustrated with the session and I am unsure of how to
address the issue. Still, I feel the best service I can offer FIS is to say
“something” – even if I risk sounding patronizing, pedantic, or [insert
your favorite pejorative].
I watched the video of Brian Josephson’s talk (Plamen, thank you for
sharing this). Four things from that talk struck me: 1) the dual-aspect he
argues for [as I also do in this session], 2) I paraphrase – “a theory of
meaning will likely displace quantum mechanics (QM), just as QM displaced
Newtonian mechanics,” 3) the need for a fundamentally new way of viewing
the world, and 4) seemingly *HUGE* gaps in his thinking on the subject. I
then compare those points with a “freewheeling speculation” label given to
the current session by the FIS moderator . . . and my mind again turns to
Cultural Legacy (re prior post).
Normally, I react to “freewheeling assaults” with humor or resigned
stoicism. But, in watching Josephson’s talk (point #2) I am reminded that I
should not let the comment pass – as the importance of what is at risk is
too great! First, humanity’s MAIN ADAPTIVE ROLE is “information,” if
someone questions that fact I invite you to post your view and I will
happily “reply.” Second, *absurdly ambitious* projects as the one now
before us, *DEMAND* strong “intellectual blood sport.” Only if done *here*
(in relative “safety”) can a model walk onto the world stage. This “honing”
requires a group setting – and I am not shy about this intellectual
reality, I hunger for it. But then, the level of constructive engagement
here has been acutely lacking.
So, the matter remains . . . is FIS culture equal to the challenge? Is
this lofty aim part of FIS’s legacy? I am unsure – but if I take my work
seriously I must find out. Without needing to defame FIS, IS4IS, or?, I
only need to find a firm forum for building/vetting an actual “theory of
meaning.”
Superficially, a “theory of meaning” seems to fall within FIS’s
purview. Initial prompts-and-pokes from António and Annette (in June) set
us off in a good direction, along with some ensuing simple clarifying
posts. Emanuel then gives us his “bizarre judgement.” Shortly after, I am
treated to a simplistic retelling of *my own view* (twice?) as oddly
arguing against the view I offer? – a rather Kafkaesque experience. This
then ripens into “freewheeling speculation, badly [in need] of
Schrodinger's disclaimer”. All this occurs in the face of available
material, given near the session’s beginning, and that directly addresses
the contested issues.
Such assaults without intellectual content, while entertaining in
themselves, can be dismissed, but when they are given by senior members
(privately, I have had a few) of FIS or IS4IS, this speaks strongly to “A
Culture.” I have no need to change this culture, but in the conduct of
*this session* I sadly find it necessary to “name that culture.” To be
clear, this does not typify ALL senior members, but I have seen enough now
that I feel compelled to remark on its unhelpful presence.
As such, for the remainder of the session (however long Pedro decides
it should last), I ask that posting members be careful to include some
actual intellectual content with their next insult (i.e., SPECIFIC comments
on the offered model). In the end, if I am simply able to locate one or two
happy, like minded, and qualified individuals with whom I might work, I
will have achieved all that I need.
Thank you for your understanding.
Marcus
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
