Stephen P. King (email@example.com)
Thu, 01 Jul 1999 12:13:02 -0400
I am resubmitting a cleaned up versions of Robert Fung's interesting post.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <owner-time>
> To: <owner-time>
> Sent: Thursday, July 01, 1999 7:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [time 417] The double-aspect ontology of David Chalmers
> Matti Pitkanen wrote:
> > 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
> 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.
> 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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:36:54 JST