This immediately raised the memory of Peirce's remark about surpassing Aristotle. We should probably create a grandiosity line in the sand for the rest of us. :) I recommend the Fugs Dover Beach<http://open.spotify.com/track/0aCWBvb5fNuMVkBIhndYY1> (Spotify) as the requisite track to induce an appropriate humility without entirely deflating us. Cheers, S
*ShortFormContent at Blogger* <http://shortformcontent.blogspot.com/> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 10:52 PM, Catherine Legg <cl...@waikato.ac.nz> wrote: > 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 > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
