Hitoshi Kitada (hitoshi@kitada.com)
Thu, 1 Jul 1999 19:50:31 +0900
I forward the following to time list. This message was bounced since Robert
Fung unsubscribed from the time list.
Best wishes,
Hitoshi
----- Original Message -----
From: <owner-time>
To: <owner-time>
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 1999 7:14 PM
Subject: BOUNCE time: Non-member submission from [ca314159
<ca314159@bestweb.net>]
> >From time-owner Thu Jul 1 19:14:19 1999
> Return-Path: <ca314159@bestweb.net>
> Received: from rothko.bestweb.net (rothko.bestweb.net [209.94.100.160])
> by kitada.com (8.9.1/3.7W) with ESMTP id TAA07007
> for <time@kitada.com>; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 19:14:16 +0900
> Received: from dialin-8.white-plains.bestweb.net
(dialin-8.white-plains.bestweb.net [209.94.110.42])
> by rothko.bestweb.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id GAA07515;
> Thu, 1 Jul 1999 06:15:28 -0400 (EDT)
> X-Authentication-Warning: rothko.bestweb.net:
dialin-8.white-plains.bestweb.net [209.94.110.42] didn't use HELO protocol
> Message-ID: <3775E38C.4180@bestweb.net>
> Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 01:40:44 -0700
> From: ca314159 <ca314159@bestweb.net>
> Organization: ca314159@bestweb.net/~ca314159/">http://ca314159@bestweb.net/~ca314159/
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win16; I)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> To: Matti Pitkanen <matpitka@pcu.helsinki.fi>
> CC: "Stephen P. King" <stephenk1@home.com>, Time List <time@kitada.com>,
> Jerry Malsam <jerry@malsam.com>
> Subject: Re: [time 417] The double-aspect ontology of David Chalmers
> References: <Pine.OSF.4.03.9907010743210.18509-100000@rock.helsinki.fi>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Matti Pitkanen wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, Stephen P. King wrote:
> >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > I found an interesting quotable in david Chalmers' book The
> > > Conscious Mind:
> > >
> > > "So the suggestion is that the information spaces required by
> > > physics are themselves grounded in phenomenal or protophenomenal
> > > properties. Each instantiation of such an information space is in fact a
> > > phenomenal (or protophenomenal) realization. Every time a feature such
> > > as mass and charge is realized, there is an intrinsic property behind
> > > it: a phenomenal or protophenomenal property, or a microphenomenal
> > > property for short. We will have a set of basic microphenomenal spaces,
> > > one for each fundamental physical property, and it is these spaces that
> > > will ground the information spaces that physics requires. The ultimate
> > > differences are these microphenomenal differences.
> > > Of course, this view again requires a variety of "outrageous"
> > > panpsychism, but I have already argued that such a panpsychism is not as
> > > unreasonable as commonly supposed. Given that I have already suggested
> > > that there may be phenomenal properties whenever there is information,
> > > we might as well press these properties into service in a useful role.
> > > The ontology that this leads us to might truly by called a
> > > double-aspect ontology. Physics requires information states but cares
> > > only about their relations, not their intrinsic nature; phenomenology
> > > requires information states, but cares only about the intrinsic nature.
> > > This view postulates a single basic set of information states unifying
> > > the two. We might say that internal aspects of these states are
> > > phenomenal, and the external aspects are physical. Or as a slogan:
> > > Experience is information from the inside; physics is information from
> > > the outside."
> >
> > I have probably read these lines a couple of years ago.
> > This is nice formulation for dualism. Experience and physics as same
> > thing seen from different sides. I believe that Chalmers defines physics
> > what I would call objective reality. And experience as conscious
> > information about it. There are several counterarguments.
> >
> > a) Why and how universe decomposes into several regions having inside and
> > outside. Why no only single huge conscious experience representing all
> > possible information about Universe meaning drowning into details as
> > *duality* would suggest?
> >
> > b) Why conscious experiences seem to give so little information about the
> > objective reality?.
> >
> > c) How it is possible to have wrong information, make mistakes, in the
> > framework of strict duality?
> >
> > d) Isn't consciousness is epiphenomenon? Is free will illusion?
> >
> > e) Doesn't this lead to panpsychism as Chalmers himself admits?
> >
> > The manner to save the day is to introduce quantum jump between objective
> > realities and define conscious information as information difference.
> >
>
> Sounds like he's saying the physical objective reality is
> absolute Rosetta stone mediating relative subjective realities.
> The parts of subjective realities which do not utilize this
> translation are not verifiable and can be communicated
> as fictions, but are not globally invariant. The sanity-insanity
> problem additionally makes any global subjective invariant
> mythical.
>
> More practically, this is the analogy-logy dualism ?
>
> If I say something has a 60-40 probability, without
> further constraints, this applies to many many things
> and the relationship between those things is analogous
> not logous(logical) or causual. The macronyms we give
> to such things are literal metaphors without further
> constraints like giving the name platypus to that which
> cannot be classified in the usual taxonomy.
>
> But also, "absorption" is similar in that it means something
> in two contexts. The macronym "absorption" in physics means
> a kind of "many decoherent resonances". The micronym "absorption"
> means a kind of "single coherent resonance". In the former,
> absorption is the noisy transfere of energy to a whole whereas
> in the microcosm is the noise there on an individual level
> where photons are accepted into atoms ?
>
> The "causual logic" that works in the macrocosm like saying
> "fire produces heat" is one in which the constraints are
> "coherent" in a linguistic sense.
>
> Linguistic coherence can be observed in the many semantic
> interpretations where the usage of the form "its" and "it's"
> is determined:
>
> "He decorated the inside of the tree house and now its outside."
> "He decorated the inside of the tree house and now it's outside."
>
> The distinguishing rule determines the outcome.
>
> The minimal set of quantum physical operators is meant to
> be sufficient to distinguish states. This state labelling
> leads to the statefunction which are the eigenfunctions
> of the operators but the is no single statefunction for all
> the operators must commute as in a classical state of coherence.
>
> The two fundamental schools of zen are Rinzai and Soto which
> teach in complementary ways. The student is bounced back
> and forth between these as the teacher determines s/he needs
> to balance his attitude. The student becomes "coherent" bouncing
> back and forth between these dual mirrors. "Enlightenment"
> becomes a subjective state of coherence when all subjective
> dualisms are "resolved". Here "resolved" has the same sense
> as understanding the "Heisenberg Microscope" in terms of
> the resolution of uncertainties.
>
> That the Fourier uncertainty is purely mathematical suggests
> an even greater subjective application for the HUP principles.
> It's not a just physical law but a subjective-objective law that
> mediates the mind-body duality problem.
>
> http://www.bestweb.net/~ca314159/GULLIVER.HTM
>
> Fermions are more constrained than bosons. The formalisms
> which deal with bosons are much more "subjective"
> and have direct metaphors in ch'an/zen buddhism.
> A caged lion, like fermions, only lets you see the caged lion
> and not the wild lion but both are aspects of the lion.
>
> --
>
> http://www.bestweb.net/~ca314159/
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:36:54 JST