For whom? And what was their purpose?
Always just half the story. Lumpen realism delivered from an egocentrically fixed view. — apokrisis
[For Wittgenstein,] The self is pure medium, pure mirror for the world; their limits coincide. The self is, in a sense, one with the world. It gives way to it. Solipsism collapses into realism. — Peter L. P. Simpson, Schopenhauer and Wittgenstein on Self and Object, p. 10
The bit where I pointed out the narcissism of small differences. I'm not convinced that what I call realism is not what you call idealism.And I think that what you have in mind when you say that, is not what I mean by the term 'idealism', although I quite agree it's not worth another go-around. — Wayfarer
Simply because the word was only needed in order to link to your comment. I would have been happy leaving it out: The world - things that are the case - cannot be called into question.Why the scare quotes around reality? — Wayfarer
I often wonder if this odd commitment of Banno's derives from his Wittgenstenianism: — Leontiskos
I understand that. You focus on your "ineliminable subjective pole" and I on my "true statements" and we argue past each other. I have agreed that there is an "ineliminable subjective pole" to our intentional states, as set out by propositional attitudes, (contra to 's claim), but argue that there are also true statements, and in reply you seem to hold that there are no true statements, only propositional attitudes.I never did call it into question. — Wayfarer
Well, you keep replying to my posts... — Banno
SO here is my first post:
Only if we make it so.
— Banno
And yours:
Eusocial doesn't quite cover it as that applies to a social organism and hive mind at the level of ants and bees.
Humans have their biology – the eusociality of a chimp troop – but then also the further levels of semiosis that result from language and logic. So it is this further level that arguably is first and foremost these days. Well it was language until logic started to take over once science could harness fossil fuels through technology.
So the question of political organisation – what constitutes the fair and just – has ramped up through some actual sweeping transitions. We have evolved from ape troops to agricultural empires to free trade/fossil fuel economic networks.
Good and bad, fair and just, are terms that take some redefining as we move on up this hierarchy of dissipative order.
— apokrisis — Banno
Have we made progress? I still think I'm right and you are not even answering the question. — Banno
Cobblers. If anything I seek to direct discussions of scientism towards intentionality. — Banno
Much of what I've read so far is on the contribution of Kant to Uexküll vision of the 'umwelt' but I'm still going.... — Wayfarer
All reality is subjective appearance. — Wayfarer
The past couple of decades in the cognitive sciences have brought about profound changes in our understanding of the mind. Once mainly characterized in purely abstract computational terms of rule-based symbol manipulation, it is nowadays widely emphasized that our mind is embodied in a living organism as well as extended into our concrete technological and social environment. Perceptual experience is no longer seen as resulting from passive information processing, but as “enacted” via regulation of sensorimotor loops and active exploration of the environment.
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep03672
Perhaps Wayfarer could take you on a Zen retreat? — apokrisis
The thing in itself is left out of the equation. And science makes a big mistake in seeming to claim otherwise. But while science often does seem to claim this, along with the lumpen realists, science just as much understands in great detail the way it is all a self-interested cognitive construct that we dwell in as our personal space. That other semiotic view has always been there and has grown stronger in recent years. — apokrisis
in reply you seem to hold that there are no true statements, only propositional attitudes. — Banno
Nope. Enzymes are large mechanical structures. Decohered and classical for all intents and purposes. But they can dip their toe into the quantum realm, exploiting tunneling to jump chemical thresholds. — apokrisis
But still I don't understand how 'classicality' 'comes to be' in your view. — boundless
Decoherence IMO can only remove interference, not superposition, hence the cat is still, if we take the quantum formalism literally, awake and asleep at the same time. — boundless
Spontaneous collapse theories - (Edit: or maybe some version of MWI) - IMO seem to me the most compatible to your views. — boundless
Classicality comes to be in the limit. So reality never arrives at that ideal conception we have of it, but through decoherence, it approaches a classical state for all practical purposes. We can apply that brand of physics and logic to it. — apokrisis
But the cat is a hot body in a warm place. It went into the box decohered and not coherent. It wasn't converted to a Bose condensate. It remained always in a "thermalised to classicality state". — apokrisis
MWI is the kind of nonsense to be avoided. Spontaneous collapse fails if you demand that reality actually be classical rather than just decohered towards its concrete limit. Zeilinger's information principle captures some aspects nicely. — apokrisis
To be honest, I set the interpretation aside these last few years to let the dust settle. Youngsters like Emily Adlam are coming along and making more sense. — apokrisis
But as I say, biophysics puts it all in a new light. Something has been missing. It seems obvious to me that this is it. — apokrisis
The world is what is the case. — Banno
Decoherence gives the definiteness of the observed outcome but is not enough to explain the uniqueness of the outcome. — boundless
I favor epistemic interpretations like QBism. I think that it is impossible to make a literal interpretation of the 'orthodox' quantum formalism that makes 'fully' sense, so to speak. — boundless
I have a hunch that you might find interesting the Thermal interpretation by Arnold Neumaier. — boundless
Doesn’t the same problem crop up in a relativistic context such as the simultaneity issue? No absolute reference frame and yet that can still be approached in the limit. — apokrisis
Yes. It is perfectly acceptable to me to go full Copenhagen and say all we can know is the numbers we read off dials. If a proper ontic interpretation isn’t available, quantum physics still works as instrumentalism. Copenhagen remains the sensible backstop epistemic position. — apokrisis
Yeah. Heard quite a bit from him on Physics Forum some years back. But I can’t remember whether I was agreeing or disagreeing with him at the time. I will have to check that reference. :up: — apokrisis
You continue to post snarky put-downs, without any relevant reasons. Do you think the Santa Fe Institute is a bunch of amateurs?So this becomes another overheated exercise in the Santa Fe tradition where self organising dynamics or topological order are meant to explain everything, and yet they can’t actually explain the key thing of how a molecule becomes a message and so how life and mind arise within the merely physical world.
For astrobiology perhaps especially, this is an amateur hour mistake. — apokrisis
My "account" is not Physics, not "wishful thinking", it's speculative Philosophy ; on a Philosophy forum, not a Physics forum. Do you see some spooky implications of my Energy/Information/Mind hypothesis that you would not wish for? Einstein didn't like some of the spooky Quantum physics that resulted from his own not-yet-proven speculations, inferred from abstract mathematics.To my eye your account of energy is wishful thinking.
It certainly is not accepted physics. — Banno
To say the world is what is, presupposes “world”, yet still leaves “what” unanswered as to its case.
The world is what is the case is the analytical tautological truth we end up with, but says nothing abut how we got there.
The world is all and any of that of which being the case, is determinable a posteriori. — Mww
It would be odd to claim that there is no significant difference between an entailment that is known and an entailment that is unknown. — Leontiskos
In a sense, I get that it can be seen as a disappointing view — boundless
The Principle of Relativity asks us to set out the laws of physics in such a way that they apply to all frames of reference....this suggests to me that any description of the world must be made from a particular perspective/frame of reference. — boundless
We do not arrive at knowledge except through a temporal, inferential process. — Leontiskos
That is, to aim to set out transformations such that an observation made in one frame of reference will be true, of that frame of reference, in any other frame of reference. — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.