The observer problem. Does it require a human to do the observation? What about a parrot? A chimpanzee? An amoeba? A Turing machine?
On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 9:47 AM Prof David West <profw...@fastmail.fm> wrote: > Peirce: > > "To satisfy our doubts, therefore, it is necessary that a method should be > found by which our beliefs may be determined by nothing human, but by some > external permanency—by something upon which our thinking has no effect. ... > Such is the method of science. Its fundamental hypothesis, restated in > more familiar language, is this: There are Real things, whose characters > are entirely independent of our opinions about them; those Reals affect our > senses according to regular laws, and, though our sensations are as > different as our relations to the objects, yet, by taking advantage of the > laws of perception, we can ascertain by reasoning how things really and > truly are; and any man, if he have sufficient experience and he reason > enough about it, will be led to the one True conclusion." > > The above quote is a context from which I am about to take words and ask > questions. Those more familiar with the Peirce corpus in toto must admonish > me if I am being unfair, i.e. this quote is an outlier or an exception to > Peirce in general. > > 1- If "There are Real things, upon which our thinking has no effect," and > there are"beliefs"" and "doubts" and "reasoning" that are, arguably, > affected by our thoughts: > a. Is Peirce a dualist? A Cartesian dualist that distinguishes between > an external permanency and internal thought? > b. Are beliefs, doubts, reasoning 'Real things'? > > 2- Quantum physics has an "observer problem" that seems to imply that the > the "characters of Real things" are, in fact, affected by human thinking, > or, at least, human attention." > a. Are there 'Real things'? > > 3- Weak postmodern objection: all beliefs and all methods are determined > by the human, technically the social, and there is no objective criteria by > which to give privilege over one human determined method/belief over > another.. > a. Does Peirce have grounds to privilege Reason over other > methods/beliefs, e.g. 'meditation', 'faith'? > > 4- Stronger postmodern objection: "the laws of perception," [the rules of] > reasoning," "sufficient experience," and "reason enough," taken together, > constrain the possible 'solution space' too severely; the 'one > [provisionally] True conclusion" is foregone — a product of the process, > not congruence with any "external permanency." > a. What are the "laws" that govern how the Real affects our senses? > b. What are the "laws of perception?" > c. Does "sufficient experience" and "reason enough" mandate a narrow, > and intolerant, orthodoxy? > > davew > > > > -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . > ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ... > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC> > http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >
-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
