Re: Carlo Rovelli: The Old Fisherman's Mistake

[Evgenii Rudnyi]

Am 02.04.2021 um 22:24 schrieb 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List:



On 4/2/2021 1:10 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

Am 02.04.2021 um 20:27 schrieb Brent Meeker:



On 4/1/2021 11:39 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

Only philosophically naive neuroscientists reject realism .


I am sorry, I have not understood your answer. Do you mean that a 
person sees red flowers directly? In the same physical location?


I don't know what you mean by "directly". 


I mean direct vs. indirect realism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism


 We have a theory of how people see red flowers.  It involves photons 
and brain processes andred flowers that are in a location.  I'm 
pretty sure you're familiar with this theory.  Do you reject it?


Do you mean the picture from Gray's book? It seems that you reject it, 
not me. I accept this picture and I am just waiting until you accept it.




Or you mean that the virtual world that a person sees is similar to 
the physical world?




Do you agree with the virtual world theory or do you reject it?


I don't know what "the virtual world theory" is.


The theory you are talking about finishes by excitation of neurons in 
the brain. Hence we must say that what a person sees is the brain's 
reconstruction of the external world. So the person sees some virtual 
world made by the brain, hence the name "the virtual world theory".


By that interpretation every theory is a theory about a virtual world, 
so the word "virtual" is empty.  The whole point of any theory or model 
is that it's about something else, F=ma doesn't express a theory about 
m.  Notice that neurons are a theoretical construct as well as flowers.


I agree that neurons are a theoretical construct. This is exactly a 
point in Hoffman's book that in my view in turn makes Rovelli's paper 
obsolete.


Let me cite your question from previous email.

>We have a theory of how people see red flowers.  It involves photons 
and brain processes andred flowers that are in a location.  I'm pretty 
sure you're familiar with this theory.  Do you reject it?


What is here theoretical constructs and what is reality? What we are 
talking about?



Brent



Evgenii


Brent



Evgeny


Am 01.04.2021 um 22:20 schrieb 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List:



On 4/1/2021 8:10 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

Am 31.03.2021 um 20:16 schrieb Brent Meeker:
Yes, in general he sees the flowers where they are located (I 
don't know what "physically" adds to "located").  He can reach 
out with stick and accurately touch the flowers.  He can throw a 
ball and hit the flowers. If the lights were extinguished, then 
he could walk to the flowers in complete darkness.  So there is 
evidence that part of seeing the flowers is locating them in his 
model of the world.


But it is also possible he has been deceived by a hologram of 
flowers or he is delusional.


But none the above is affected by whether he accepts the modern 
theory of vision or Plato's theory...which was Rovelli's point.


Let me first remind you that neuroscience rejects naive realism. 


So does Rovelli.  So what?

To this end, I have attached a picture from the book Jeffrey A. 
Gray, Consciousness: Creeping up on the Hard Problem. It shows us 
that signals from the external world come to the brain and all 
conscious experiences results from brain's activity. So everything 
what a person feels including "He can throw a ball and hit the 
flowers" is basically generated by the brain (hence the name: 
Virtual world theory). Gray puts it this way


"For, just like those inner sensations, that world out there is 
constructed by our brains and exists within our consciousness. In 
a very real sense, the world as we consciously experience it is 
not out there at all: it is inside each and every of us."


When we speak about physical locations of objects - we speak about 
something that on the picture is shown as "Real unperceived 
world". When we talk about "He can throw a ball and hit the 
flowers", this belongs to three boxes at the bottom (conscious 
experiences) and this is clearly located somewhere else as the 
physical objects.


Do you agree with what neuroscience says? Or you prefer naive 
realism? In my view the attached picture makes a big difference to 
what Rovelli says. Yet, let us clear a position in the respect to 
the attached picture. Do we accept it or do not?


Only philosophically naive neuroscientists reject realism . Gray 
imagines that because perception happens in the brain (a material 
object) that he can dismiss the physical world. The physical world 
is a construct, but that doesn't mean it's unreal.  Here's Galen 
Strawson's explanation of why there is no "hard problem" of 
consciousness, with which I mostly agree: 
https://www.academia.edu/397808/Real_Materialism_2003


Brent






Brent

On 3/31/2021 7:56 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

"Spatially separated"?   By how many meters?


It is a good question. Let us start with it. So a person sees 
red flowers as 

Re: Carlo Rovelli: The Old Fisherman's Mistake

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

My primary objection to Master Rovelli's is the basis of his physics goes back 
to the traditional Block Universe, beloved, of Einstein and Michele Besso. 
Unfortunately, this view gives rise to hypothetical conundrums, specifically, 
such fictional elements as Time-Ram, as depicted with Dr. Who vying for control 
of the galaxy against his opposite, The Master (Jon Pertwee v Roger Delgado). 
Simply visualize two massive, transversable, wormholes  that collide just under 
the speed of light and whola! The Big Rip! Peeking from behind stiffened 
fingers and...Ok the world is still here! No rip because the cosmos is not a 
Block snapshot as Rovelli asserts, but appears to be something more akin to 
fluid dynamics, perhaps a holographic fluid of sorts, maybe? 

-Original Message-
From: smitra 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, Apr 2, 2021 4:48 pm
Subject: Re: Carlo Rovelli: The Old Fisherman's Mistake

On 02-04-2021 22:24, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:
> On 4/2/2021 1:10 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>> Am 02.04.2021 um 20:27 schrieb Brent Meeker:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 4/1/2021 11:39 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>>>>> Only philosophically naive neuroscientists reject realism .
>>>> 
>>>> I am sorry, I have not understood your answer. Do you mean that a 
>>>> person sees red flowers directly? In the same physical location?
>>> 
>>> I don't know what you mean by "directly".
>> 
>> I mean direct vs. indirect realism:
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism
>> 
>> 
>>>  We have a theory of how people see red flowers.  It involves photons 
>>> and brain processes andred flowers that are in a location.  I'm 
>>> pretty sure you're familiar with this theory.  Do you reject it?
>> 
>> Do you mean the picture from Gray's book? It seems that you reject it, 
>> not me. I accept this picture and I am just waiting until you accept 
>> it.
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Or you mean that the virtual world that a person sees is similar to 
>>>> the physical world?
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Do you agree with the virtual world theory or do you reject it?
>>> 
>>> I don't know what "the virtual world theory" is.
>> 
>> The theory you are talking about finishes by excitation of neurons in 
>> the brain. Hence we must say that what a person sees is the brain's 
>> reconstruction of the external world. So the person sees some virtual 
>> world made by the brain, hence the name "the virtual world theory".
> 
> By that interpretation every theory is a theory about a virtual world,
> so the word "virtual" is empty.  The whole point of any theory or
> model is that it's about something else, F=ma doesn't express a theory
> about m.  Notice that neurons are a theoretical construct as well as
> flowers.
> 
> Brent

We can make theories about the real world and validate those in 
experiments, but the brain's neural circuitry has implemented a virtual 
reality that has evolved to match some important aspects of the natural 
world, allowing our ancestors to survive. Certain concepts that we 
experience like the experience of seeing the color red, being angry etc. 
then only have a meaning at the level of the algorithm the brain is 
running. While you can still reduce whatever is happening in the brain 
in terms of the fundamental physical processes, to completely capture 
the experience, you always need to construct the algorithm from the 
fundamental physical processes.

Saibal



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ebabb0cd664ab8299880910481cf51c1%40zonnet.nl.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/42370295.226707.1617404896229%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Carlo Rovelli: The Old Fisherman's Mistake

[smitra]

On 02-04-2021 22:24, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:

On 4/2/2021 1:10 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

Am 02.04.2021 um 20:27 schrieb Brent Meeker:



On 4/1/2021 11:39 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

Only philosophically naive neuroscientists reject realism .


I am sorry, I have not understood your answer. Do you mean that a 
person sees red flowers directly? In the same physical location?


I don't know what you mean by "directly".


I mean direct vs. indirect realism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism


 We have a theory of how people see red flowers.  It involves photons 
and brain processes andred flowers that are in a location.  I'm 
pretty sure you're familiar with this theory.  Do you reject it?


Do you mean the picture from Gray's book? It seems that you reject it, 
not me. I accept this picture and I am just waiting until you accept 
it.




Or you mean that the virtual world that a person sees is similar to 
the physical world?




Do you agree with the virtual world theory or do you reject it?


I don't know what "the virtual world theory" is.


The theory you are talking about finishes by excitation of neurons in 
the brain. Hence we must say that what a person sees is the brain's 
reconstruction of the external world. So the person sees some virtual 
world made by the brain, hence the name "the virtual world theory".


By that interpretation every theory is a theory about a virtual world,
so the word "virtual" is empty.  The whole point of any theory or
model is that it's about something else, F=ma doesn't express a theory
about m.  Notice that neurons are a theoretical construct as well as
flowers.

Brent


We can make theories about the real world and validate those in 
experiments, but the brain's neural circuitry has implemented a virtual 
reality that has evolved to match some important aspects of the natural 
world, allowing our ancestors to survive. Certain concepts that we 
experience like the experience of seeing the color red, being angry etc. 
then only have a meaning at the level of the algorithm the brain is 
running. While you can still reduce whatever is happening in the brain 
in terms of the fundamental physical processes, to completely capture 
the experience, you always need to construct the algorithm from the 
fundamental physical processes.


Saibal



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ebabb0cd664ab8299880910481cf51c1%40zonnet.nl.

Re: Carlo Rovelli: The Old Fisherman's Mistake

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 4/2/2021 1:10 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

Am 02.04.2021 um 20:27 schrieb Brent Meeker:



On 4/1/2021 11:39 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

Only philosophically naive neuroscientists reject realism .


I am sorry, I have not understood your answer. Do you mean that a 
person sees red flowers directly? In the same physical location?


I don't know what you mean by "directly". 


I mean direct vs. indirect realism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism


 We have a theory of how people see red flowers.  It involves photons 
and brain processes andred flowers that are in a location.  I'm 
pretty sure you're familiar with this theory.  Do you reject it?


Do you mean the picture from Gray's book? It seems that you reject it, 
not me. I accept this picture and I am just waiting until you accept it.




Or you mean that the virtual world that a person sees is similar to 
the physical world?




Do you agree with the virtual world theory or do you reject it?


I don't know what "the virtual world theory" is.


The theory you are talking about finishes by excitation of neurons in 
the brain. Hence we must say that what a person sees is the brain's 
reconstruction of the external world. So the person sees some virtual 
world made by the brain, hence the name "the virtual world theory".


By that interpretation every theory is a theory about a virtual world, 
so the word "virtual" is empty.  The whole point of any theory or model 
is that it's about something else, F=ma doesn't express a theory about 
m.  Notice that neurons are a theoretical construct as well as flowers.


Brent



Evgenii


Brent



Evgeny


Am 01.04.2021 um 22:20 schrieb 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List:



On 4/1/2021 8:10 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

Am 31.03.2021 um 20:16 schrieb Brent Meeker:
Yes, in general he sees the flowers where they are located (I 
don't know what "physically" adds to "located").  He can reach 
out with stick and accurately touch the flowers.  He can throw a 
ball and hit the flowers. If the lights were extinguished, then 
he could walk to the flowers in complete darkness.  So there is 
evidence that part of seeing the flowers is locating them in his 
model of the world.


But it is also possible he has been deceived by a hologram of 
flowers or he is delusional.


But none the above is affected by whether he accepts the modern 
theory of vision or Plato's theory...which was Rovelli's point.


Let me first remind you that neuroscience rejects naive realism. 


So does Rovelli.  So what?

To this end, I have attached a picture from the book Jeffrey A. 
Gray, Consciousness: Creeping up on the Hard Problem. It shows us 
that signals from the external world come to the brain and all 
conscious experiences results from brain's activity. So everything 
what a person feels including "He can throw a ball and hit the 
flowers" is basically generated by the brain (hence the name: 
Virtual world theory). Gray puts it this way


"For, just like those inner sensations, that world out there is 
constructed by our brains and exists within our consciousness. In 
a very real sense, the world as we consciously experience it is 
not out there at all: it is inside each and every of us."


When we speak about physical locations of objects - we speak about 
something that on the picture is shown as "Real unperceived 
world". When we talk about "He can throw a ball and hit the 
flowers", this belongs to three boxes at the bottom (conscious 
experiences) and this is clearly located somewhere else as the 
physical objects.


Do you agree with what neuroscience says? Or you prefer naive 
realism? In my view the attached picture makes a big difference to 
what Rovelli says. Yet, let us clear a position in the respect to 
the attached picture. Do we accept it or do not?


Only philosophically naive neuroscientists reject realism . Gray 
imagines that because perception happens in the brain (a material 
object) that he can dismiss the physical world. The physical world 
is a construct, but that doesn't mean it's unreal.  Here's Galen 
Strawson's explanation of why there is no "hard problem" of 
consciousness, with which I mostly agree: 
https://www.academia.edu/397808/Real_Materialism_2003


Brent






Brent

On 3/31/2021 7:56 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

"Spatially separated"?   By how many meters?


It is a good question. Let us start with it. So a person sees 
red flowers as it has been shown in the colored part of the 
picture. The person sees the red flowers outside of him. 
However, could we say that the person sees the red flowers in 
the same position where the physical object is located? How 
would you answer this question? You changes in the picture do 
not give a clear answer to this question.


Evgeny


Am 30.03.2021 um 22:21 schrieb 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List:



On 3/30/2021 9:10 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> That is not at all what Rovelli says.  You still see red, 
but youhave
> learned that it is due to 

Re: Carlo Rovelli: The Old Fisherman's Mistake

[Evgenii Rudnyi]

Am 02.04.2021 um 20:27 schrieb Brent Meeker:



On 4/1/2021 11:39 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

Only philosophically naive neuroscientists reject realism .


I am sorry, I have not understood your answer. Do you mean that a 
person sees red flowers directly? In the same physical location?


I don't know what you mean by "directly".  


I mean direct vs. indirect realism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism


 We have a theory of how 
people see red flowers.  It involves photons and brain processes and red 
flowers that are in a location.  I'm pretty sure you're familiar with 
this theory.  Do you reject it?


Do you mean the picture from Gray's book? It seems that you reject it, 
not me. I accept this picture and I am just waiting until you accept it.




Or you mean that the virtual world that a person sees is similar to 
the physical world?




Do you agree with the virtual world theory or do you reject it?


I don't know what "the virtual world theory" is.


The theory you are talking about finishes by excitation of neurons in 
the brain. Hence we must say that what a person sees is the brain's 
reconstruction of the external world. So the person sees some virtual 
world made by the brain, hence the name "the virtual world theory".


Evgenii


Brent



Evgeny


Am 01.04.2021 um 22:20 schrieb 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List:



On 4/1/2021 8:10 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

Am 31.03.2021 um 20:16 schrieb Brent Meeker:
Yes, in general he sees the flowers where they are located (I don't 
know what "physically" adds to "located").  He can reach out with 
stick and accurately touch the flowers.  He can throw a ball and 
hit the flowers. If the lights were extinguished, then he could 
walk to the flowers in complete darkness.  So there is evidence 
that part of seeing the flowers is locating them in his model of 
the world.


But it is also possible he has been deceived by a hologram of 
flowers or he is delusional.


But none the above is affected by whether he accepts the modern 
theory of vision or Plato's theory...which was Rovelli's point.


Let me first remind you that neuroscience rejects naive realism. 


So does Rovelli.  So what?

To this end, I have attached a picture from the book Jeffrey A. 
Gray, Consciousness: Creeping up on the Hard Problem. It shows us 
that signals from the external world come to the brain and all 
conscious experiences results from brain's activity. So everything 
what a person feels including "He can throw a ball and hit the 
flowers" is basically generated by the brain (hence the name: 
Virtual world theory). Gray puts it this way


"For, just like those inner sensations, that world out there is 
constructed by our brains and exists within our consciousness. In a 
very real sense, the world as we consciously experience it is not 
out there at all: it is inside each and every of us."


When we speak about physical locations of objects - we speak about 
something that on the picture is shown as "Real unperceived world". 
When we talk about "He can throw a ball and hit the flowers", this 
belongs to three boxes at the bottom (conscious experiences) and 
this is clearly located somewhere else as the physical objects.


Do you agree with what neuroscience says? Or you prefer naive 
realism? In my view the attached picture makes a big difference to 
what Rovelli says. Yet, let us clear a position in the respect to 
the attached picture. Do we accept it or do not?


Only philosophically naive neuroscientists reject realism . Gray 
imagines that because perception happens in the brain (a material 
object) that he can dismiss the physical world.  The physical world 
is a construct, but that doesn't mean it's unreal.  Here's Galen 
Strawson's explanation of why there is no "hard problem" of 
consciousness, with which I mostly agree: 
https://www.academia.edu/397808/Real_Materialism_2003


Brent






Brent

On 3/31/2021 7:56 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

"Spatially separated"?   By how many meters?


It is a good question. Let us start with it. So a person sees red 
flowers as it has been shown in the colored part of the picture. 
The person sees the red flowers outside of him. However, could we 
say that the person sees the red flowers in the same position 
where the physical object is located? How would you answer this 
question? You changes in the picture do not give a clear answer to 
this question.


Evgeny


Am 30.03.2021 um 22:21 schrieb 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List:



On 3/30/2021 9:10 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> That is not at all what Rovelli says.  You still see red, but 
youhave
> learned that it is due to 564-580nm photons exciting neurons 
in your eye
> (b) and not rays reaching out from your eyes to contact 
redness (a).


I am afraid that it will not work this way. To show this, I have 
attached a picture from David Gamez, Human and Machine 
Consciousness, 2018. Primary and secondary qualities are not 
essential, what is important that 

Re: Carlo Rovelli: The Old Fisherman's Mistake

[Evgenii Rudnyi]

>Only philosophically naive neuroscientists reject realism .

I am sorry, I have not understood your answer. Do you mean that a person 
sees red flowers directly? In the same physical location?


Or you mean that the virtual world that a person sees is similar to the 
physical world?


Do you agree with the virtual world theory or do you reject it?

Evgeny


Am 01.04.2021 um 22:20 schrieb 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List:



On 4/1/2021 8:10 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

Am 31.03.2021 um 20:16 schrieb Brent Meeker:
Yes, in general he sees the flowers where they are located (I don't 
know what "physically" adds to "located").  He can reach out with 
stick and accurately touch the flowers.  He can throw a ball and hit 
the flowers. If the lights were extinguished, then he could walk to 
the flowers in complete darkness.  So there is evidence that part of 
seeing the flowers is locating them in his model of the world.


But it is also possible he has been deceived by a hologram of flowers 
or he is delusional.


But none the above is affected by whether he accepts the modern 
theory of vision or Plato's theory...which was Rovelli's point.


Let me first remind you that neuroscience rejects naive realism. 


So does Rovelli.  So what?

To this end, I have attached a picture from the book Jeffrey A. Gray, 
Consciousness: Creeping up on the Hard Problem. It shows us that 
signals from the external world come to the brain and all conscious 
experiences results from brain's activity. So everything what a person 
feels including "He can throw a ball and hit the flowers" is basically 
generated by the brain (hence the name: Virtual world theory). Gray 
puts it this way


"For, just like those inner sensations, that world out there is 
constructed by our brains and exists within our consciousness. In a 
very real sense, the world as we consciously experience it is not out 
there at all: it is inside each and every of us."


When we speak about physical locations of objects - we speak about 
something that on the picture is shown as "Real unperceived world". 
When we talk about "He can throw a ball and hit the flowers", this 
belongs to three boxes at the bottom (conscious experiences) and this 
is clearly located somewhere else as the physical objects.


Do you agree with what neuroscience says? Or you prefer naive realism? 
In my view the attached picture makes a big difference to what Rovelli 
says. Yet, let us clear a position in the respect to the attached 
picture. Do we accept it or do not?


Only philosophically naive neuroscientists reject realism .  Gray 
imagines that because perception happens in the brain (a material 
object) that he can dismiss the physical world.  The physical world is a 
construct, but that doesn't mean it's unreal.  Here's Galen Strawson's 
explanation of why there is no "hard problem" of consciousness, with 
which I mostly agree: https://www.academia.edu/397808/Real_Materialism_2003


Brent






Brent

On 3/31/2021 7:56 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

"Spatially separated"?   By how many meters?


It is a good question. Let us start with it. So a person sees red 
flowers as it has been shown in the colored part of the picture. The 
person sees the red flowers outside of him. However, could we say 
that the person sees the red flowers in the same position where the 
physical object is located? How would you answer this question? You 
changes in the picture do not give a clear answer to this question.


Evgeny


Am 30.03.2021 um 22:21 schrieb 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List:



On 3/30/2021 9:10 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> That is not at all what Rovelli says.  You still see red, but 
youhave
> learned that it is due to 564-580nm photons exciting neurons in 
your eye
> (b) and not rays reaching out from your eyes to contact redness 
(a).


I am afraid that it will not work this way. To show this, I have 
attached a picture from David Gamez, Human and Machine 
Consciousness, 2018. Primary and secondary qualities are not 
essential, what is important that manifest world (bubble of 
experience on the picture) is spatially separated 


"Spatially separated"?   By how many meters?

from the external world (black and white part). Photons from red 
flowers belongs to the external world but a person sees the red 
flowers somewhere else.


Which is completely beside Rovelli's point.  Rovelli is comparing 
two models of the external world that are both compatible with the 
manifest world.  Your cartoon version should be:







The spacial separation of the two worlds sometimes is referred to 
as the virtual world theory (Gamez's book is good illustration to 
this end). This directly follows from what you have written - 
information comes into the eyes and it does not come out. So the 
manifest world that the person sees is completely separated from 
the external physical world.


That's self-contradictory.  If it's "completely separated" then 
information cannot come in.




One could claim 

Re: Carlo Rovelli: The Old Fisherman's Mistake

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 4/1/2021 8:10 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

Am 31.03.2021 um 20:16 schrieb Brent Meeker:
Yes, in general he sees the flowers where they are located (I don't 
know what "physically" adds to "located").  He can reach out with 
stick and accurately touch the flowers.  He can throw a ball and hit 
the flowers. If the lights were extinguished, then he could walk to 
the flowers in complete darkness.  So there is evidence that part of 
seeing the flowers is locating them in his model of the world.


But it is also possible he has been deceived by a hologram of flowers 
or he is delusional.


But none the above is affected by whether he accepts the modern 
theory of vision or Plato's theory...which was Rovelli's point.


Let me first remind you that neuroscience rejects naive realism. 


So does Rovelli.  So what?

To this end, I have attached a picture from the book Jeffrey A. Gray, 
Consciousness: Creeping up on the Hard Problem. It shows us that 
signals from the external world come to the brain and all conscious 
experiences results from brain's activity. So everything what a person 
feels including "He can throw a ball and hit the flowers" is basically 
generated by the brain (hence the name: Virtual world theory). Gray 
puts it this way


"For, just like those inner sensations, that world out there is 
constructed by our brains and exists within our consciousness. In a 
very real sense, the world as we consciously experience it is not out 
there at all: it is inside each and every of us."


When we speak about physical locations of objects - we speak about 
something that on the picture is shown as "Real unperceived world". 
When we talk about "He can throw a ball and hit the flowers", this 
belongs to three boxes at the bottom (conscious experiences) and this 
is clearly located somewhere else as the physical objects.


Do you agree with what neuroscience says? Or you prefer naive realism? 
In my view the attached picture makes a big difference to what Rovelli 
says. Yet, let us clear a position in the respect to the attached 
picture. Do we accept it or do not?


Only philosophically naive neuroscientists reject realism .  Gray 
imagines that because perception happens in the brain (a material 
object) that he can dismiss the physical world.  The physical world is a 
construct, but that doesn't mean it's unreal.  Here's Galen Strawson's 
explanation of why there is no "hard problem" of consciousness, with 
which I mostly agree: https://www.academia.edu/397808/Real_Materialism_2003


Brent






Brent

On 3/31/2021 7:56 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

"Spatially separated"?   By how many meters?


It is a good question. Let us start with it. So a person sees red 
flowers as it has been shown in the colored part of the picture. The 
person sees the red flowers outside of him. However, could we say 
that the person sees the red flowers in the same position where the 
physical object is located? How would you answer this question? You 
changes in the picture do not give a clear answer to this question.


Evgeny


Am 30.03.2021 um 22:21 schrieb 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List:



On 3/30/2021 9:10 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> That is not at all what Rovelli says.  You still see red, but 
youhave
> learned that it is due to 564-580nm photons exciting neurons in 
your eye
> (b) and not rays reaching out from your eyes to contact redness 
(a).


I am afraid that it will not work this way. To show this, I have 
attached a picture from David Gamez, Human and Machine 
Consciousness, 2018. Primary and secondary qualities are not 
essential, what is important that manifest world (bubble of 
experience on the picture) is spatially separated 


"Spatially separated"?   By how many meters?

from the external world (black and white part). Photons from red 
flowers belongs to the external world but a person sees the red 
flowers somewhere else.


Which is completely beside Rovelli's point.  Rovelli is comparing 
two models of the external world that are both compatible with the 
manifest world.  Your cartoon version should be:







The spacial separation of the two worlds sometimes is referred to 
as the virtual world theory (Gamez's book is good illustration to 
this end). This directly follows from what you have written - 
information comes into the eyes and it does not come out. So the 
manifest world that the person sees is completely separated from 
the external physical world.


That's self-contradictory.  If it's "completely separated" then 
information cannot come in.




One could claim that the external world is still similar to the 
manifest world as on the attached figure. Yet the main point of 
Hoffman's book that evolution must produce an opposite result. 


No.  His point is not that that it's the "opposite" of 
similar...whatever that would mean.  His point is that it's not 
identical and necessarily so in order that it serve natural 
selection. But the scientific theory of he world must be consistent 

Re: Carlo Rovelli: The Old Fisherman's Mistake

[Evgenii Rudnyi]

Am 31.03.2021 um 20:16 schrieb Brent Meeker:
Yes, in general he sees the flowers where they are located (I don't know 
what "physically" adds to "located").  He can reach out with stick and 
accurately touch the flowers.  He can throw a ball and hit the flowers. 
If the lights were extinguished, then he could walk to the flowers in 
complete darkness.  So there is evidence that part of seeing the flowers 
is locating them in his model of the world.


But it is also possible he has been deceived by a hologram of flowers or 
he is delusional.


But none the above is affected by whether he accepts the modern theory 
of vision or Plato's theory...which was Rovelli's point.


Let me first remind you that neuroscience rejects naive realism. To this 
end, I have attached a picture from the book Jeffrey A. Gray, 
Consciousness: Creeping up on the Hard Problem. It shows us that signals 
from the external world come to the brain and all conscious experiences 
results from brain's activity. So everything what a person feels 
including "He can throw a ball and hit the flowers" is basically 
generated by the brain (hence the name: Virtual world theory). Gray puts 
it this way


"For, just like those inner sensations, that world out there is 
constructed by our brains and exists within our consciousness. In a very 
real sense, the world as we consciously experience it is not out there 
at all: it is inside each and every of us."


When we speak about physical locations of objects - we speak about 
something that on the picture is shown as "Real unperceived world". When 
we talk about "He can throw a ball and hit the flowers", this belongs to 
three boxes at the bottom (conscious experiences) and this is clearly 
located somewhere else as the physical objects.


Do you agree with what neuroscience says? Or you prefer naive realism? 
In my view the attached picture makes a big difference to what Rovelli 
says. Yet, let us clear a position in the respect to the attached 
picture. Do we accept it or do not?





Brent

On 3/31/2021 7:56 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

"Spatially separated"?   By how many meters?


It is a good question. Let us start with it. So a person sees red 
flowers as it has been shown in the colored part of the picture. The 
person sees the red flowers outside of him. However, could we say that 
the person sees the red flowers in the same position where the 
physical object is located? How would you answer this question? You 
changes in the picture do not give a clear answer to this question.


Evgeny


Am 30.03.2021 um 22:21 schrieb 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List:



On 3/30/2021 9:10 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

> That is not at all what Rovelli says.  You still see red, but youhave
> learned that it is due to 564-580nm photons exciting neurons in 
your eye

> (b) and not rays reaching out from your eyes to contact redness (a).

I am afraid that it will not work this way. To show this, I have 
attached a picture from David Gamez, Human and Machine 
Consciousness, 2018. Primary and secondary qualities are not 
essential, what is important that manifest world (bubble of 
experience on the picture) is spatially separated 


"Spatially separated"?   By how many meters?

from the external world (black and white part). Photons from red 
flowers belongs to the external world but a person sees the red 
flowers somewhere else.


Which is completely beside Rovelli's point.  Rovelli is comparing two 
models of the external world that are both compatible with the 
manifest world.  Your cartoon version should be:







The spacial separation of the two worlds sometimes is referred to as 
the virtual world theory (Gamez's book is good illustration to this 
end). This directly follows from what you have written - information 
comes into the eyes and it does not come out. So the manifest world 
that the person sees is completely separated from the external 
physical world.


That's self-contradictory.  If it's "completely separated" then 
information cannot come in.




One could claim that the external world is still similar to the 
manifest world as on the attached figure. Yet the main point of 
Hoffman's book that evolution must produce an opposite result. 


No.  His point is not that that it's the "opposite" of 
similar...whatever that would mean.  His point is that it's not 
identical and necessarily so in order that it serve natural 
selection. But the scientific theory of he world must be consistent 
with the manifest world...that's what empirical means.


Brent
Science is just common sense writ large and pursued rigorously.

So provided we believe in evolution we must say that the attached 
picture is wrong. Rather we should talk about pic. 2.7 on the link 
below - that is, about a thing in itself.


https://www.openbookpublishers.com/htmlreader/978-1-78374-298-1/ch2.xhtml 



Evgenii

Am 30.03.2021 um 03:29 schrieb 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List:



On 3/29/2021 5:17 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

Re: Carlo Rovelli: The Old Fisherman's Mistake

[Evgenii Rudnyi]

> "Spatially separated"?   By how many meters?

It is a good question. Let us start with it. So a person sees red 
flowers as it has been shown in the colored part of the picture. The 
person sees the red flowers outside of him. However, could we say that 
the person sees the red flowers in the same position where the physical 
object is located? How would you answer this question? You changes in 
the picture do not give a clear answer to this question.


Evgeny


Am 30.03.2021 um 22:21 schrieb 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List:



On 3/30/2021 9:10 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

> That is not at all what Rovelli says.  You still see red, but you have
> learned that it is due to 564-580nm photons exciting neurons in your 
eye

> (b) and not rays reaching out from your eyes to contact redness (a).

I am afraid that it will not work this way. To show this, I have 
attached a picture from David Gamez, Human and Machine Consciousness, 
2018. Primary and secondary qualities are not essential, what is 
important that manifest world (bubble of experience on the picture) is 
spatially separated 


"Spatially separated"?   By how many meters?

from the external world (black and white part). Photons from red 
flowers belongs to the external world but a person sees the red 
flowers somewhere else.


Which is completely beside Rovelli's point.  Rovelli is comparing two 
models of the external world that are both compatible with the manifest 
world.  Your cartoon version should be:







The spacial separation of the two worlds sometimes is referred to as 
the virtual world theory (Gamez's book is good illustration to this 
end). This directly follows from what you have written - information 
comes into the eyes and it does not come out. So the manifest world 
that the person sees is completely separated from the external 
physical world.


That's self-contradictory.  If it's "completely separated" then 
information cannot come in.




One could claim that the external world is still similar to the 
manifest world as on the attached figure. Yet the main point of 
Hoffman's book that evolution must produce an opposite result. 


No.  His point is not that that it's the "opposite" of 
similar...whatever that would mean.  His point is that it's not 
identical and necessarily so in order that it serve natural selection. 
But the scientific theory of he world must be consistent with the 
manifest world...that's what empirical means.


Brent
Science is just common sense writ large and pursued rigorously.

So provided we believe in evolution we must say that the attached 
picture is wrong. Rather we should talk about pic. 2.7 on the link 
below - that is, about a thing in itself.


https://www.openbookpublishers.com/htmlreader/978-1-78374-298-1/ch2.xhtml

Evgenii

Am 30.03.2021 um 03:29 schrieb 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List:



On 3/29/2021 5:17 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
Rovelli is a loop quantum gravitation maven. This is a very 
ontological physics, and explains in part Rovelli's stance. The 
though has occurred to me that maybe LQG states are the kernel of 
some sort of target map. Either than or they are 
epistemic/ontologically uncertain and in an epistemic setting target 
map to zero.


LC

On Monday, March 29, 2021 at 2:05:33 PM UTC-5 use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:

    I have read Rovelli's paper. I am disappointed. What Rovelli
    suggest is eliminativism. Red (a) (what I see) does not exist but
    red (b) (electromagnetic wave peaking near 564–580 nm) exists.



That is not at all what Rovelli says.  You still see red, but you 
have learned that it is due to 564-580nm photons exciting neurons in 
your eye (b) and not rays reaching out from your eyes to contact 
redness (a). Rovelli is replacing one conceptualization with 
another...and telling us we should not become overly attached to a 
conceptualization.  I'm reminded of Lemaitre advising the Pope to not 
tie faith in the creation to the Big Bang.




    Rovelli should have read first:

    Donald D. Hoffman. The Case Against Reality: Why Evolution Hid the
    Truth from Our Eyes, 2019.



I don't think Rovelli would have any argument with it.  He certainly 
doesn't hold that the manifest world, which evolution has provided, 
is the real world.  Physics is all about using instruments and 
experiments and theories to find a more comprehensive and consistent 
concept of the world that produces the manifest world.


Brent



    Evgenii

    Brent schrieb am Sonntag, 28. März 2021 um 00:35:27 UTC+1:




     Forwarded Message 


    *The Old Fisherman's Mistake*

    ROVELLI, Carlo (2021)

    Abstract

    A number of thorny issues such as the nature of time, free
    will, the clash of the manifest and scientific images, the
    possibility of a naturalistic foundation of morality, and
    perhaps even the possibility of accounting for consciousness
    in naturalistic terms, seem to me to be plagued by the
   

Re: Carlo Rovelli: The Old Fisherman's Mistake

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 29 Mar 2021, at 17:04, Philip Benjamin  wrote:
> 
> general_the...@googlegroups.com <mailto:general_the...@googlegroups.com> 
> Subject: RE: Carlo Rovelli: The Old Fisherman's Mistake
>  
> [Philip Benjamin]
>There is no need for confounding the self-evident physical reality with an 
> illusion,


It seems to me that only consciousness is self-evident. 

The term “physical reality” is ambiguous as it has not the same meaning in 
Plato and in Aristotle, when we do metaphysics.

This is not important when doing physics (local prediction), but it is 
important when doing metaphysics/theology.




> if and only if two different physical realities exist: 1. Ordinary 
> materialism of ordinary light matter with its chemistry (chemical bonds); 2. 
> Extraordinary materialism of extraordinary dark-: matter with its chemistry.


Hmm… (I am already quite skeptical on any primitive (in need to be assumed) 
matter. Adding a second one will not help).





> As to which one is primary or secondary is a matter of philosophic choice!!



I don’t believe there is any choice when studying theories, except choosing 
which theories to test and discarded if shown wrong.

Philosophic choice is a red herring which might come from the bad idea to 
separate theology from science (bad for theology and science, but good for the 
pseudo-religious and pseudo-scientist I guess).




> (Note: Chemical bonds are spin governed particle configurations of duets and 
> octets).  Mathematics of Computer and computation will not explain the 
> invisible (dark) consciousness.

I think it does. I can give references to my papers, where I show that 
mechanism is incompatible with Materialism, in a constructive way: explaining 
how to derive quanta and qualia from what *any¨universal machine discover from 
“honest” or “sound” introspection. 



>   Feeling a sense of loss for free-will is not the same as understanding 
> the reality that something within is external to the ordinary natural realm, 
> and subject to influence from outside which can be an extraordinarily 
> physical realm of dark-matter with its chemistry. This may be the source of 
> the “hard” part of free-will and consciousness.


I doubt we can explain something by speculating on more complicated and 
mysterious things. Free-will is easy to explain for the machine, once we 
understand that they are aware of their incompleteness and suffer from 
hesitation in front of the partial character of knowledge due to that 
incompleteness. Free-will is felt, and real, from the machine 
self-indetermination due to her inability to access its whole history at the 
right mechanist level. This is related to the fact that she cannot know which 
computations are running her, among infinitely many.





> Then, there is no contradiction between the reality and the phenomenology of 
> the “free will including psychology, morality and law, and the discoveries of 
> science. From the very moment of conception, the resonant  “dark” & “light” 
> twins are formed recognizing each other—the basis for at least 
> self-awareness. Resonance is rudimentary recognition. Light matter bodies are 
> electric, entropic and decaying. Dark-matter bodies are non-electric, 
> nonentropic and undying. The chasm between death and life is obviously 
> abysmal and beyond the scope of science. When a light matter twin dies, the 
> dark twin will be left at a negative energy state of at least -E = - mC^2 
> where m is the mass of the light twin. Only an external source of power much 
> greater than that can bring the dark twin back to any operational level. 
> There is “The Additional Mass of Life” for a living organism in a 
> hermitically sealed system, which disappears at death reported by Amrit S. 
> Sorli, Scientific Research Centre BISTRA, Ptuj, Slovenia, 
> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary 
> <http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary>; doi=10.1.1.218.573;  
> https://core.ac.uk/display/21767122 <https://core.ac.uk/display/21767122>. 
> 2012, Journal of Theoretics Vol.4-2).   


Honestly, I will wait for some proof that this is testable, but I doubt that 
invoking even one notion of matter can help, as I said above. You will need a 
non computationalist theory of mind, and that is already hard to conceive. 



>   
>   A failure to distinguish an illusory but rigidly misunderstood concept 
> from the actuality will not explain consciousness.  A “real” sunset is not 
> the illusion of sun splashing into the water, it is ultimately the motion of 
> the earth and gravity. The natural order of time, motion, matter and space 
> are all in intact. A mirage is likewise a “real” physical phenomenon from 
> refracted light, heat and materiality, only the effects of the realities are 
> illusory. Dark-matter bodies are likew

Re: Carlo Rovelli: The Old Fisherman's Mistake

[Evgenii Rudnyi]

> That is not at all what Rovelli says.  You still see red, but you have
> learned that it is due to 564-580nm photons exciting neurons in your eye
> (b) and not rays reaching out from your eyes to contact redness (a).

I am afraid that it will not work this way. To show this, I have 
attached a picture from David Gamez, Human and Machine Consciousness, 
2018. Primary and secondary qualities are not essential, what is 
important that manifest world (bubble of experience on the picture) is 
spatially separated from the external world (black and white part). 
Photons from red flowers belongs to the external world but a person sees 
the red flowers somewhere else.


The spacial separation of the two worlds sometimes is referred to as the 
virtual world theory (Gamez's book is good illustration to this end). 
This directly follows from what you have written - information comes 
into the eyes and it does not come out. So the manifest world that the 
person sees is completely separated from the external physical world.


One could claim that the external world is still similar to the manifest 
world as on the attached figure. Yet the main point of Hoffman's book 
that evolution must produce an opposite result. So provided we believe 
in evolution we must say that the attached picture is wrong. Rather we 
should talk about pic. 2.7 on the link below - that is, about a thing in 
itself.


https://www.openbookpublishers.com/htmlreader/978-1-78374-298-1/ch2.xhtml

Evgenii

Am 30.03.2021 um 03:29 schrieb 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List:



On 3/29/2021 5:17 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
Rovelli is a loop quantum gravitation maven. This is a very 
ontological physics, and explains in part Rovelli's stance. The though 
has occurred to me that maybe LQG states are the kernel of some sort 
of target map. Either than or they are epistemic/ontologically 
uncertain and in an epistemic setting target map to zero.


LC

On Monday, March 29, 2021 at 2:05:33 PM UTC-5 use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:

    I have read Rovelli's paper. I am disappointed. What Rovelli
    suggest is eliminativism. Red (a) (what I see) does not exist but
    red (b) (electromagnetic wave peaking near 564–580 nm) exists.



That is not at all what Rovelli says.  You still see red, but you have 
learned that it is due to 564-580nm photons exciting neurons in your eye 
(b) and not rays reaching out from your eyes to contact redness (a). 
Rovelli is replacing one conceptualization with another...and telling us 
we should not become overly attached to a conceptualization.  I'm 
reminded of Lemaitre advising the Pope to not tie faith in the creation 
to the Big Bang.




    Rovelli should have read first:

    Donald D. Hoffman. The Case Against Reality: Why Evolution Hid the
    Truth from Our Eyes, 2019.



I don't think Rovelli would have any argument with it.  He certainly 
doesn't hold that the manifest world, which evolution has provided, is 
the real world.  Physics is all about using instruments and experiments 
and theories to find a more comprehensive and consistent concept of the 
world that produces the manifest world.


Brent



    Evgenii

    Brent schrieb am Sonntag, 28. März 2021 um 00:35:27 UTC+1:




     Forwarded Message 


    *The Old Fisherman's Mistake*

    ROVELLI, Carlo (2021)

    Abstract

    A number of thorny issues such as the nature of time, free
    will, the clash of the manifest and scientific images, the
    possibility of a naturalistic foundation of morality, and
    perhaps even the possibility of accounting for consciousness
    in naturalistic terms, seem to me to be plagued by the
    conceptual confusion nourished by a single fallacy: the old
    fisherman's mistake.

    http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/18837/1/Pescatore.pdf
    


    Rovelli has it exactly right.

    Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/72677d11-ca95-4653-a487-8b0f8cebe8e1n%40googlegroups.com 
. 





--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4dbde74f-c3f0-35de-63f2-0a244f595b47%40rudnyi.ru.

RE: Carlo Rovelli: The Old Fisherman's Mistake

[Philip Benjamin]

[Philip Benjamin]
   Why or how  physical signals are transduced into qualia? Has any scientist 
or philosopher ever answered that question? Basically sense organs transduce 
physical energy into a nervous signal or conscious feeling of a "property" or 
"quale". It may be magical or illusory to science, but is factual, actual and 
real!! Conscious of what and what is consciousness are two different questions. 
Self-consciousness is being conscious of the "self". It cannot be real if 
"self" is unreal. For "self" to be real but INVISIBLE, the only candidate now 
available for science is bio dark-matter with its chemistry. Nobody but nobody 
is going to even consider that as a remote possibility. The anathemas 
associated with spirit/soul soon grip the 'soul' of science!! The strange irony 
here is that there are no such taboos with mysticism-Niels Bohr's Taoism or 
Jungian sorceries for examples.
Philip Benjamin

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Evgenii Rudnyi
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 2:06 PM
To: Everything List 
Subject: Re: Carlo Rovelli: The Old Fisherman's Mistake

I have read Rovelli's paper. I am disappointed. What Rovelli suggest is 
eliminativism. Red (a) (what I see) does not exist but red (b) (electromagnetic 
wave peaking near 564-580 nm) exists.

Rovelli should have read first:

Donald D. Hoffman. The Case Against Reality: Why Evolution Hid the Truth from 
Our Eyes, 2019.

Evgenii
Brent schrieb am Sonntag, 28. März 2021 um 00:35:27 UTC+1:



 Forwarded Message 


The Old Fisherman's Mistake

ROVELLI, Carlo (2021)

Abstract

A number of thorny issues such as the nature of time, free will, the clash of 
the manifest and scientific images, the possibility of a naturalistic 
foundation of morality, and perhaps even the possibility of accounting for 
consciousness in naturalistic terms, seem to me to be plagued by the conceptual 
confusion nourished by a single fallacy: the old fisherman's mistake.

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/18837/1/Pescatore.pdf<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fphilsci-archive.pitt.edu%2F18837%2F1%2FPescatore.pdf=04%7C01%7C%7Ccd51e3ffac4640d0a06a08d8f2e5a20b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637526415363852626%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=MQMSlqvY2E1p6hpg%2FbHn0vuAOj38lxzFVrHZrgGvV54%3D=0>


Rovelli has it exactly right.

Brent

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/SA0PR11MB470408CC110F7E0A3637CC8DA87D9%40SA0PR11MB4704.namprd11.prod.outlook.com.

Re: Carlo Rovelli: The Old Fisherman's Mistake

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 3/29/2021 5:17 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
Rovelli is a loop quantum gravitation maven. This is a very 
ontological physics, and explains in part Rovelli's stance. The though 
has occurred to me that maybe LQG states are the kernel of some sort 
of target map. Either than or they are epistemic/ontologically 
uncertain and in an epistemic setting target map to zero.


LC

On Monday, March 29, 2021 at 2:05:33 PM UTC-5 use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:

I have read Rovelli's paper. I am disappointed. What Rovelli
suggest is eliminativism. Red (a) (what I see) does not exist but
red (b) (electromagnetic wave peaking near 564–580 nm) exists.



That is not at all what Rovelli says.  You still see red, but you have 
learned that it is due to 564-580nm photons exciting neurons in your eye 
(b) and not rays reaching out from your eyes to contact redness (a).  
Rovelli is replacing one conceptualization with another...and telling us 
we should not become overly attached to a conceptualization.  I'm 
reminded of Lemaitre advising the Pope to not tie faith in the creation 
to the Big Bang.




Rovelli should have read first:

Donald D. Hoffman. The Case Against Reality: Why Evolution Hid the
Truth from Our Eyes, 2019.



I don't think Rovelli would have any argument with it.  He certainly 
doesn't hold that the manifest world, which evolution has provided, is 
the real world.  Physics is all about using instruments and experiments 
and theories to find a more comprehensive and consistent concept of the 
world that produces the manifest world.


Brent



Evgenii

Brent schrieb am Sonntag, 28. März 2021 um 00:35:27 UTC+1:




 Forwarded Message 


*The Old Fisherman's Mistake*

ROVELLI, Carlo (2021)

Abstract

A number of thorny issues such as the nature of time, free
will, the clash of the manifest and scientific images, the
possibility of a naturalistic foundation of morality, and
perhaps even the possibility of accounting for consciousness
in naturalistic terms, seem to me to be plagued by the
conceptual confusion nourished by a single fallacy: the old
fisherman's mistake.

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/18837/1/Pescatore.pdf



Rovelli has it exactly right.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/72677d11-ca95-4653-a487-8b0f8cebe8e1n%40googlegroups.com 
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/faff7bf0-cb4f-fa20-ff9d-9852ff37b51f%40verizon.net.

Re: Carlo Rovelli: The Old Fisherman's Mistake

[Lawrence Crowell]

Rovelli is a loop quantum gravitation maven. This is a very ontological 
physics, and explains in part Rovelli's stance. The though has occurred to 
me that maybe LQG states are the kernel of some sort of target map. Either 
than or they are epistemic/ontologically uncertain and in an epistemic 
setting target map to zero.

LC

On Monday, March 29, 2021 at 2:05:33 PM UTC-5 use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:

> I have read Rovelli's paper. I am disappointed. What Rovelli suggest is 
> eliminativism. Red (a) (what I see) does not exist but red (b) 
> (electromagnetic wave peaking near 564–580 nm) exists.
>
> Rovelli should have read first:
>
> Donald D. Hoffman. The Case Against Reality: Why Evolution Hid the Truth 
> from Our Eyes, 2019.
>
> Evgenii
>
> Brent schrieb am Sonntag, 28. März 2021 um 00:35:27 UTC+1:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>  Forwarded Message  
>>
>>
>> *The Old Fisherman's Mistake*
>>
>> ROVELLI, Carlo (2021)  
>>
>> Abstract
>>
>> A number of thorny issues such as the nature of time, free will, the 
>> clash of the manifest and scientific images, the possibility of a 
>> naturalistic foundation of morality, and perhaps even the possibility of 
>> accounting for consciousness in naturalistic terms, seem to me to be 
>> plagued by the conceptual confusion nourished by a single fallacy: the old 
>> fisherman's mistake.
>>
>> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/18837/1/Pescatore.pdf 
>>
>>
>> Rovelli has it exactly right.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/72677d11-ca95-4653-a487-8b0f8cebe8e1n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Carlo Rovelli: The Old Fisherman's Mistake

[Evgenii Rudnyi]

I have read Rovelli's paper. I am disappointed. What Rovelli suggest is 
eliminativism. Red (a) (what I see) does not exist but red (b) 
(electromagnetic wave peaking near 564–580 nm) exists.

Rovelli should have read first:

Donald D. Hoffman. The Case Against Reality: Why Evolution Hid the Truth 
from Our Eyes, 2019.

Evgenii

Brent schrieb am Sonntag, 28. März 2021 um 00:35:27 UTC+1:

>
>
>
>  Forwarded Message  
>
>
> *The Old Fisherman's Mistake*
>
> ROVELLI, Carlo (2021)  
>
> Abstract
>
> A number of thorny issues such as the nature of time, free will, the clash 
> of the manifest and scientific images, the possibility of a naturalistic 
> foundation of morality, and perhaps even the possibility of accounting for 
> consciousness in naturalistic terms, seem to me to be plagued by the 
> conceptual confusion nourished by a single fallacy: the old fisherman's 
> mistake.
>
> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/18837/1/Pescatore.pdf 
>
>
> Rovelli has it exactly right.
>
> Brent
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/532cbc34-a25f-43a0-8087-0b121288fa18n%40googlegroups.com.

RE: Carlo Rovelli: The Old Fisherman's Mistake

[Philip Benjamin]

[Philip Benjamin]
   There is no need for confounding the self-evident physical reality with an 
illusion, if and only if two different physical realities exist: 1. Ordinary 
materialism of ordinary light matter with its chemistry (chemical bonds); 2. 
Extraordinary materialism of extraordinary dark-: matter with its chemistry. As 
to which one is primary or secondary is a matter of philosophic choice!! (Note: 
Chemical bonds are spin governed particle configurations of duets and octets).  
Mathematics of Computer and computation will not explain the invisible (dark) 
consciousness.
  Feeling a sense of loss for free-will is not the same as understanding 
the reality that something within is external to the ordinary natural realm, 
and subject to influence from outside which can be an extraordinarily physical 
realm of dark-matter with its chemistry. This may be the source of the "hard" 
part of free-will and consciousness. Then, there is no contradiction between 
the reality and the phenomenology of the "free will including psychology, 
morality and law, and the discoveries of science. From the very moment of 
conception, the resonant  "dark" & "light" twins are formed recognizing each 
other-the basis for at least self-awareness. Resonance is rudimentary 
recognition. Light matter bodies are electric, entropic and decaying. 
Dark-matter bodies are non-electric, nonentropic and undying. The chasm between 
death and life is obviously abysmal and beyond the scope of science. When a 
light matter twin dies, the dark twin will be left at a negative energy state 
of at least -E = - mC^2 where m is the mass of the light twin. Only an external 
source of power much greater than that can bring the dark twin back to any 
operational level. There is "The Additional Mass of Life" for a living organism 
in a hermitically sealed system, which disappears at death reported by Amrit S. 
Sorli, Scientific Research Centre BISTRA, Ptuj, Slovenia, 
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary; doi=10.1.1.218.573;  
https://core.ac.uk/display/21767122. 2012, Journal of Theoretics Vol.4-2).
  A failure to distinguish an illusory but rigidly misunderstood concept 
from the actuality will not explain consciousness.  A "real" sunset is not the 
illusion of sun splashing into the water, it is ultimately the motion of the 
earth and gravity. The natural order of time, motion, matter and space are all 
in intact. A mirage is likewise a "real" physical phenomenon from refracted 
light, heat and materiality, only the effects of the realities are illusory. 
Dark-matter bodies are likewise real but operate invisibly.  It is really in 
the nature of the actual moral behavior of people or in the nature of actual 
subjective experience to be unaccountable for  known behaviors.  Because, no 
conceptual analysis by a dying "light" body can be precise clarification of the 
intents of an undying 'dark" body. The concepts we use can become dangerously 
misleading not because of any illusionary or faulty or inadequate and 
misleading notions and intuitions of realities, but because of the atavistic 
and innate dissonance between dying and undying "twins".  The increase of 
biophoton emission rates under stress or trauma of living cells, with a burst 
at death of the cells, is a measure of this dissonance. (It must be noted here 
that there is an increase of biophoton emission rates by an order of magnitude 
across the taxa from human to plants, indicating taxonomic differences between 
interactions of light and dark chemical bonds.  Ref: "Spiritual Body or 
Physical Spirit? Your Invisible Doppelgänger"  Sunbury Press 2013) .
Philip Benjamin

   CC. Carlo Rovelli PhD, Theoretical Physicist, "The Old Fisherman's Mistake" 
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/18837/1/Pescatore.pdf.

From: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List  Saturday, March 27, 2021 6:35 PM  To: 
everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Subject: Fwd: Carlo Rovelli: The Old Fisherman's Mistake
 Forwarded Message  The Old Fisherman's Mistake   ROVELLI, 
Carlo (2021)

Abstract

A number of thorny issues such as the nature of time, free will, the clash of 
the manifest and scientific images, the possibility of a naturalistic 
foundation of morality, and perhaps even the possibility of accounting for 
consciousness in naturalistic terms, seem to me to be plagued by the conceptual 
confusion nourished by a single fallacy: the old fisherman's mistake.

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/18837/1/Pescatore.pdf


Rovelli has it exactly right.

Brent

-- 
You received 

Re: Carlo Rovelli: The Old Fisherman's Mistake

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 28 Mar 2021, at 00:35, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Forwarded Message 
> 
> 
> The Old Fisherman's Mistake
> 
> ROVELLI, Carlo (2021) 
> 
> Abstract
> 
> A number of thorny issues such as the nature of time, free will, the clash of 
> the manifest and scientific images, the possibility of a naturalistic 
> foundation of morality, and perhaps even the possibility of accounting for 
> consciousness in naturalistic terms, seem to me to be plagued by the 
> conceptual confusion nourished by a single fallacy: the old fisherman's 
> mistake.
> 
> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/18837/1/Pescatore.pdf 
>  
> 
> 
> Rovelli has it exactly right.


I agree, for this reasoning. Even with what he said about Chalmers' distinction 
between the easy and hard problem of consciousness. Of course, he is implicitly 
still Aristotelian without making it clear that the primacy of a physical 
universe is a strong theological or metaphysical assumption “without-evidence”.

In fact, I am sometimes attacked by people who claim that I am asserting that 
there is no physical universe. Those who do this are doing the fisher-man 
mistake, as I am saying only that we cannot assume the physical universe, which 
is quite different than to say it does not exist. 1492 years of Aristotelian 
brainwashing (by the Church notably), and the whole God/non-God debate, makes 
us forget that science (including theology) is born from the doubt, not about 
the existence of a physical universe, but about its primacy, or the need to 
assume it at the start.

People confuse the obvious many evidences for a physical reality, with 
evidences that the physical reality is primary, but those are very different 
thing. In fact, there are not yet one evidence for physicalism, and the dream 
argument was a valid way to doubt it, and it becomes a theorem when we assume 
Digital Mechanism (like Darwin). Now, they are evidence against materialism, 
and I think materialism will disappear like vitalism. It does not make sense 
(provably so with Digital Mechanism)/ 
The problem here is that there are still many people (more than in my youth) 
who don’t understand that computer and computation are arithmetical notions.

Bruno



> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b0692a6c-ce74-d59f-3ca0-ce9c220aae28%40verizon.net
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/272D3C43-C999-459A-83CF-09DC48C6A87F%40ulb.ac.be.