Dear Stephen,
Dover Beach is a beautiful poem, I love it.
I assume that you are referring to Peirce's Preface to "The Principles of
Philosophy" in the Collected Papers, correct?
With respect,
Steven
--
Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith
Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering
http://iase.info
On Mar 6, 2012, at 3:56 AM, Stephen C. Rose wrote:
> 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 (Spotify) as the requisite
> track to induce an appropriate humility without entirely deflating us.
> Cheers, S
>
> ShortFormContent at Blogger
>
>
>
> 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
--
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
