X-Message-Number: 7978
From:  (Thomas Donaldson)
Subject: Re: CryoNet #7957 - #7962
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 21:48:01 -0800 (PST)

Hi!

I'm feeling a bit more free now, since I got the newsletter done early this
evening. Very nice. There were even some articles about consciousness in it,
not because of the discussion on Cryonet but because we're hardly the only
people who have been thinking about the subject.

For Mr. Clark:
One of the things I am saying is that our senses are not a REPRESENTATION
of anything. That is an attempt to read ideas about how computers work into
ideas of how we work. Are the senses of a cat a representation? A monkey?
The point is that we use our language, and even before we had language,
our senses, in a much more direct way. If a bee stings me the event is not
a representation of a bee sting, it is a bee sting. (And if we want to 
discuss pleasurable feelings, we can do that too, though perhaps we should
ask all those less than 18 to leave). Fundamentally we HAVE to use these
things in a more direct way --- otherwise we would be chasing representations
indefinitely. The error involved is the same kind of error as the belief
that we must have a little homunculus inside us that is aware.

As for the Sun, no, I need not get the Sun inside my head. I do get sensory
impressions from what we now call the Sun (since astronomy is of relatively
recent origin, this is in its way a good example). I believe there is a very
close G0 type star out there, and that it puts out the light that I feel
and see by when I go outside. And yes, that BELIEF involves a lot of 
representation. But when I go outside and feel the Sun, or put on very dark
glasses and look at it, I am not dealing with a representation of anything.

Some of what I say to others continues this discussion.

For Mike:
Well, there you go again. In the first place, your universal language has
very simple problems. It assumes that the "intelligent beings" have senses
which work much like our own, and in more or less the same priority. Suppose
that rather than vision they worked on smell. Your sequence of prime numbers
would be quite bewildering. And if you tried to communicate with them using
odors, then you would be using arbitrary odors to do so.

In the second place, the fact that we can see patterns in objects and the 
world does not of itself mean that the patterns are there. Only a little 
history of science will tell you that. IF some other intelligent nonhuman
beings work similarly enough to us, and IF they found your patterns 
expressed in a way they could perceive easily, then they MIGHT be able to
see the same patterns we see. However they might just form their own 
phlogiston theory and totally misinterpret what we were trying to say.

I'm not saying that it is wrong to try to see patterns in the world, just
that is wrong to believe that they are in the world rather than in us. And
I even think it is dangerous, as I explained in a previous message. If we
cannot shake ourselves loose from the idea that phlogiston explains 
combustion, we have a real and serious problem. One way that can happen is
if we believe the pattern is THERE, we did not invent it. 

For that matter, experimental science is based on the idea of testing these
patterns we think we see. That has proven to be a very good idea indeed, and
so long as we do this testing we will find ourselves emending those 
patterns. But behind the entire idea of experimental testing is the idea
that patterns we think we see just might be illusions ie. they are in us,
not in the world.

And finally, I even include mathematics in that. Mathematics relates to the
world in a different way from physics, however. Sure, we can set up a 
mathematical theory, and prove theorems which must be true given the 
postulates of that theory. HOWEVER it can fall down badly still: if we 
want to use that mathematical theory to do something other than make more
mathematics, we must somehow use it APPROPRIATELY. Euclidean geometry was
perfect within itself. The problems with it came because empirically we 
found that it wasn't always the most appropriate mental tool to use. In
short, sure you can make your theories always true, but then they may cease to
be relevant rather than be shown false. You get to take your pick.

A universal language? Come back when you can prove to me that you understand
the universe, and then I just may listen. We don't even understand the 
phenomena involved in quantum mechanics or relativity --- otherwise we'd have
a theory which includes them both. 

			Long long life to all,
			   and especially good wishes for Mr. Coetzee,

				Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=7978