Hi Steven, I'm afraid I must join my voice to those who feel they would not pick up the book based on your blurb (or preface - why call it a 'Proemial'? What is a 'proemial'??) below.
Though many of the component ideas are interesting, your overall expression of them seems to display a grandiosity which is a red flag to a serious philosopher. In particular there is this sentence which you put right upfront: "...something so profound that it would not only have a broad impact upon the entire species but the universe itself could not proceed, could not evolve, without consideration of it." I don't see how you could possibly know this - what scientific methodology might deliver this result. Loving the interesting range of 'hands-on' critical perspectives already generously provided by Peirce-listers... Cheers, Cathy On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith <ste...@iase.us> wrote: > Dear List, > > I am writing the Proemial for my forthcoming book "On The Origin Of > Experience" and will appreciate your feedback. In particular, I ask that you > challenge two things about it. First, over the years of my work I have > developed an aversion to using the term "consciousness," which seems to me to > be too overloaded and vague to be useful. On the other hand Debbie (my wife) > argues that it will interest people more if I use it. Second, the vague > "transhumanism" concerns me. > > Imagine this is on the back of a book. Does it encourage you to read the book? > > > Proemial: On The Origin Of Experience > > Imagine that you could discover something so profound that it would not only > have a broad impact upon the entire species but the universe itself could not > proceed, could not evolve, without consideration of it. > > This speculation refers to the role an intelligent species capable of > mastering the science of living systems plays in cosmology. Rather than > viewing intelligent species as the end product of a developing universe, it > suggests that they are simply a necessary step along the way. It observes > that an intelligent species able to place life into environments in which it > would not otherwise appear plays a role in the unfolding of the world. > > Imagine, for example, that future Voyager spacecraft can be constructed with > a fundamental understanding of what is required to build living, thinking, > machines, machines that have the capability of any living system to heal and > reproduce. > > The intelligent creation of such machines, machines that experience, may be > an essential part of nature's unfolding. This thought suggests that > intelligent species, here and elsewhere in the universe, play a role in the > natural dynamics of the unfolding world. > > Such a species would become the evolved “intelligent designers” of life, > extending life beyond the principles and necessities of arbitrary evolution, > an inevitable part of nature's “plan” to move life beyond its dependence upon > the environment in which it first evolves. > > If this is the case then our species, along with other such species that may > appear elsewhere, are not mere spectators but play a role in the unfolding of > the world. > > In recent decades we have made significant advances in understanding the > science of the living. Modern biophysics has begun to show us the detailed > composition and dynamics of biophysical structure. For the record, it's > nothing like a modern computer system. > > The results of this global effort are Galilean in their scope and pregnant > with implication. It is surely only a matter of time before we move to the > Newtonian stage in the development of our understanding and learn the details > of how sense is formed and modified, the role that sense plays in our > directed actions, and how intelligent thought functions. > > Today, however, there is only a poor understanding of the mechanics of sense. > Theorists have had little time to give the new data deep consideration. > > Clearly, more biophysical experiments, more observational data, will help us. > If we look at the history of science this period is analogous to the period > before Newton, in which experimentalists and observers such as Galileo and > Copernicus built the foundations of Newton's inquiry. A breakthrough of a > kind similar to Newton's discovery of gravitation is required. > > But to make this breakthrough it is the discipline of the logicians that we > need to recall. Before the age of sterile twentieth century logic, when > mathematical logic was first developed and before modern computers were > invented, it is the logicians that concerned themselves with explaining the > nature and operation of thought and sense. Recall that George Boole > (1815-1864) entitled his work on logic The Laws Of Thought[1] and the founder > of modern logic, Gottlob Frege (1848-1925), wrote the book entitled Sense And > Reference[2]. I know from experience that it is a surprise to many that use > logic everyday in their education and computing professions that the original > concern of logicians is the operation of the senses and the mind. If we are > to uncover the mechanics of sense and thought, if we are to understand the > biophysical operation of the mind, then it is this earlier inquiry to which > we must return. > > My subject here is logic of the kind that existed before the current era. It > is a logic informed by recent advances in biophysics. It explores solutions > that could not have been considered by the founders of mathematical logic > because they lacked this new data, and it takes steps toward a calculus for > biophysics. It does not provide the final answer. This is because we propose > that something new is to be discovered. But we do present an hypothesis that > identifies exactly what that something is and how to find it. What is more, > even if we discover the hypothesis is false we will learn something new and > make progress. > > The speculation above, that we can discover something so profound that it > will not only have a broad impact upon the entire species but that the > universe itself cannot proceed without it, will give philosophers something > to talk about for generations. It amuses me, in any case. In the meantime we > in science, and logic in particular, have work to do. > > > -- > Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith > Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering > http://iase.info > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L > listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to > lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of > the message. To post a message to the list, send it to > PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
