Mike Helland
Jun2-05, 12:44 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Marcel LeBel wrote:\n> >\n> > You didn\'t deny this, but instead hypothesised a "real world",\n> > which was invisible, but contained the "process producing\n> > the results", and supposed that quantum mechanics could work\n> > there, and hence still "work" even though induction didn\'t.\n> >\n> This is like watching someone bathing in quicksand right in front of the\n> warning sign! Do you have any idea of what you are doing or even of\n> what you want? Sure, there is (A) a real universe out there made of\n> some mush substance with its built-in processes and causes. Then there\n> is (B)our reality which is a total construct, which is how we experience\n> the variations this mush has to offer given the way we are built, our\n> size and the way we think. An then there is (C)our scientific analysis\n> of our experience of that mush.\n\nWould it perhaps be adequate if we defined (B) as observation\n(experiment) and (C) as knowledge (theory) ?\n\nI suggest this because using your terms you\'ve separated our experience\nof the universe and our knowledge of the universe, while it seems to me\nthat our experience of the universe is defined by both our observations\nand our knowledge, as they are deeply intertwined in the memetic\nnetworks of our brians.\n\nOr so it seems to me.\n\nAnother way to say this is, there is the universal ontological domain.\nIn the universal ontological domain there is a neural network of memes.\nThese memes are an axiomatic system of truths that as a whole, define a\nrelative ontological domain.\n\nOur relative ontological domain is defined by knowledge, both a\nposteriori (empirical) and a priori (mathematical, metaphysical).\n\n>From what you\'ve said, you seem to be setting the two apart. I think\nthat\'s a mistake.\n\n<snip>\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Marcel LeBel wrote:
> >
> > You didn't deny this, but instead hypothesised a "real world",
> > which was invisible, but contained the "process producing
> > the results", and supposed that quantum mechanics could work
> > there, and hence still "work" even though induction didn't.
> >
> This is like watching someone bathing in quicksand right in front of the
> warning sign! Do you have any idea of what you are doing or even of
> what you want? Sure, there is (A) a real universe out there made of
> some mush substance with its built-in processes and causes. Then there
> is (B)our reality which is a total construct, which is how we experience
> the variations this mush has to offer given the way we are built, our
> size and the way we think. An then there is (C)our scientific analysis
> of our experience of that mush.
Would it perhaps be adequate if we defined (B) as observation
(experiment) and (C) as knowledge (theory) ?
I suggest this because using your terms you've separated our experience
of the universe and our knowledge of the universe, while it seems to me
that our experience of the universe is defined by both our observations
and our knowledge, as they are deeply intertwined in the memetic
networks of our brians.
Or so it seems to me.
Another way to say this is, there is the universal ontological domain.
In the universal ontological domain there is a neural network of memes.
These memes are an axiomatic system of truths that as a whole, define a
relative ontological domain.
Our relative ontological domain is defined by knowledge, both a
posteriori (empirical) and a priori (mathematical, metaphysical).
>From what you've said, you seem to be setting the two apart. I think
that's a mistake.
<snip>
> >
> > You didn't deny this, but instead hypothesised a "real world",
> > which was invisible, but contained the "process producing
> > the results", and supposed that quantum mechanics could work
> > there, and hence still "work" even though induction didn't.
> >
> This is like watching someone bathing in quicksand right in front of the
> warning sign! Do you have any idea of what you are doing or even of
> what you want? Sure, there is (A) a real universe out there made of
> some mush substance with its built-in processes and causes. Then there
> is (B)our reality which is a total construct, which is how we experience
> the variations this mush has to offer given the way we are built, our
> size and the way we think. An then there is (C)our scientific analysis
> of our experience of that mush.
Would it perhaps be adequate if we defined (B) as observation
(experiment) and (C) as knowledge (theory) ?
I suggest this because using your terms you've separated our experience
of the universe and our knowledge of the universe, while it seems to me
that our experience of the universe is defined by both our observations
and our knowledge, as they are deeply intertwined in the memetic
networks of our brians.
Or so it seems to me.
Another way to say this is, there is the universal ontological domain.
In the universal ontological domain there is a neural network of memes.
These memes are an axiomatic system of truths that as a whole, define a
relative ontological domain.
Our relative ontological domain is defined by knowledge, both a
posteriori (empirical) and a priori (mathematical, metaphysical).
>From what you've said, you seem to be setting the two apart. I think
that's a mistake.
<snip>