tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3427479692989285926.post8357589080251576198..comments2024-03-17T11:54:10.124+11:00Comments on Journeyman Philosopher: Subjectivity: The Mind’s I (Part I)Paul P. Mealinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14573615711151742992noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3427479692989285926.post-14169105547784071132009-06-23T23:18:02.535+10:002009-06-23T23:18:02.535+10:00Hi Paul,
I didn't know it either, and hadn...Hi Paul,<br /><br />I didn't know it either, and hadn't encountered the problem before. Possibly it's a new limitation introduced by blogspot -- if so, certainly not a welcome one. You'd think they'd be inundated with complaints. Oh, well...<br /><br />Regards,<br />PeterPeter Kenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03280487081194387790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3427479692989285926.post-12051241794757515982009-06-23T16:59:47.436+10:002009-06-23T16:59:47.436+10:00Hi Peter,
I didn't know there was a character...Hi Peter,<br /><br />I didn't know there was a character limit on comments.<br /><br />Not that I mind getting comments by installments.<br /><br />Regards, Paul.Paul P. Mealinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573615711151742992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3427479692989285926.post-58492008150839565102009-06-23T13:30:51.742+10:002009-06-23T13:30:51.742+10:00part 1a
Paul: Borges and I by Jorge Luis Borges......part 1a<br />Paul: Borges and I by Jorge Luis Borges...<br /><br />Peter: I am constrained to confess, and for reasons that I can't exactly explicate, that Borges has always annoyed me prodigiously. It's certainly not the person, Borges, whom I find objectionable; on the contrary, his early and courageous stands against fascism and anti-<br />Semitism invite my admiration, though his subsequent descent into the immitigable evil of conservatism is one I have to lament. In this instance, though, it is, frankly, his more metaphysical and literary <br />compositions, which I find at once vaporous, self-indulgent and <br />paradoxically narcissistic in their ostensible attempt to suppress subjectivity and avoid narrative appeal. But that's just an aesthetic and a literary reaction, not an analytical one, and it's not confined to "Borges y Yo." Even "Bestiario" annoyed me, and I could find no reason for its existence even as a whimsical encyclopedic compilation, so devoid is it of the least vestige of wit, humor or interest-sustaining content. Howsoever, <i>Borges y Yo</i> does make a point, and it's one that I think relates to the central paradox of existence: its "non-isotropicity," for want of a better description, or lack of symmetry in that the only position relative to ontology and awareness that can be affirmed tautologously is that of solipsism, which, for practical purposes revulses most people, and has, probably, no appeal as an operational lifestyle except for the clinically autistic. This has always bothered me, since I like my truths to be tautologous (or, at <br />least, which is equivalent, mathematically valid once the proffered axioms have been accepted). Borges often said that the one subject in which he was emphatically not interested was "Borges," (which I don't for <br />a minute believe, since a desire to have someone respect his preference for biographies that deemphasize his personality -- or anything else -- has paradoxically to imply a measure of egotism), so perhaps he was, from some (different) perspective troubled by the same problem. Which I can <br />understand. And perhaps I ought to refrain from disparaging conservative writers, on principle, because of my inability to exercise objectivity relative to an ideology I find so deeply <br />and repugnantly anti-human. Shutting up now.<br /><br />(4096 char limit forces me to post multi-part)<br /><br />continued...<br />Regards,<br />PeterPeter Kenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03280487081194387790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3427479692989285926.post-46578611486419613212009-06-23T13:26:55.974+10:002009-06-23T13:26:55.974+10:00Hi Paul,
I felt that, in order to give your post ...Hi Paul,<br /><br />I felt that, in order to give your post serious attention, I really <br />needed to do so interlinearly, and in multiple parts, just because of the amount of psychological, physical and metaphysical territory you managed to cover, so herewith part 1 of my promised belated, more considered analysis. (I should mention that I've also consulted my spouse, who <i>is</i> a qualified physicist, anywhere I felt myself to be on less-than-secure ground, but primarily in regard to part 2, which I haven't yet finished.) Truth is, though, she and I generally agree on the metaphysics of physics, so nothing much new emerged from the consultation except affirmation that I wasn't making a <i>complete</i> idiot of myself (which, viz. Goedel, would not preclude my being a <i>consistent</i> one, though). Disliking angle-bracket notation, I'll use our names to introduce paragraphs.<br /><br />Paul: The title of this post is a direct steal...<br /><br />Peter: I'm sure they wouldn't mind the theft, since you do them ample <br />justice, at least in the part you critique. Having actually taught a course on recursion and consciousness based on Hofstadter's <i>Goedel, Escher, Bach</i>, I'm profoundly embarrassed to confess that, whereas I did once possess a copy of <i>The Mind's I</i> (long story involving "diluvian" events), I hadn't actually read all of it, so in part, you were evoking distant memories for me, and in part, describing material I hadn't previously assimilated. The overall themes of sentience and subjectivity, though, were ones on which I'd focussed for most of my <br />academic career, so the evocation involved some pretty convoluted <br />associations.<br /><br />Paul: ...Is God a Taoist?...<br /><br />Peter: I think I commented on Smullyan's essay in connection with your earlier post, so I'll forbear to repeat myself here.<br /><br />"Your HTML cannot be accepted: Must be at most 4,096 characters"<br /><br />end, part 1Peter Kenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03280487081194387790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3427479692989285926.post-33809124167603615692009-06-23T10:33:54.685+10:002009-06-23T10:33:54.685+10:00By the way, Mmfiore, have you read this post that ...By the way, Mmfiore, have you read <a href="http://journeymanphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/05/natures-layers-of-reality-from.html" rel="nofollow">this post</a> that I wrote last month?<br /><br />Regards, Paul.Paul P. Mealinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573615711151742992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3427479692989285926.post-13889033335074826522009-06-23T10:24:41.182+10:002009-06-23T10:24:41.182+10:00Thanks Mmfiore,
I've had a quick look, but wi...Thanks Mmfiore,<br /><br />I've had a quick look, but will have a closer examination when I have more time.<br /><br />Regards, Paul.Paul P. Mealinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573615711151742992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3427479692989285926.post-618271285323753072009-06-23T04:45:50.481+10:002009-06-23T04:45:50.481+10:00We are a group that is challenging the current par...We are a group that is challenging the current paradigm in physics which is Quantum Mechanics and String Theory. There is a new Theory of Everything Breakthrough. It exposes the flaws in both Quantum Theory and String Theory. Please Help us set the physics community back on the right course and prove that Einstein was right! Visit our site The Theory of Super Relativity: http://www.superrelativity.orgmmfiorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07649185144011409332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3427479692989285926.post-30569581229194313862009-06-22T09:30:41.283+10:002009-06-22T09:30:41.283+10:00Hi Peter,
I don't take offence at anything yo...Hi Peter,<br /><br />I don't take offence at anything you say. I think that we are both a bit sensitive.<br /><br />I was just conscious when writing this piece, that I hadn't reached a conclusion, whereas I usually do.<br /><br />Thought-provocation is always the aim.<br /><br />I'm always happy to hear from a professional physicist or anyone who is more knowledgeable than me.<br /><br />Regards, Paul.Paul P. Mealinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573615711151742992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3427479692989285926.post-31034728035299742222009-06-22T02:18:18.931+10:002009-06-22T02:18:18.931+10:00Hi Paul,
1) Your essay was exquisitely well-writt...Hi Paul,<br /><br />1) Your essay was exquisitely well-written -- better, even, than most of your work, which is a high bar to clear. That it wasn't an argument but rather a constellation of reflections organized around the central theme of subjectivity was something I took for granted, and emphatically not something I meant in any way to criticize. You just succeeded <i>too well</i> in "provoking thought(s)," and I found myself inundated in such a cascade of them that I felt overwhelmed, and could respond only (initially) by means of a run-on, stream-of-consciousness screed, promising myself that I'd supply a more organized and cogent essay when I'd had an opportunity to sort things out. The rest was just meant to be a whimsical and semi-teasing act of logorrhetic procrastination.<br /><br />2) Your reply seemed to suggest that you thought I might have intended my frivolous divagations in some way that was remotely captious or critical, which I promise you could not have been further from the truth. I'm always impressed by the range of your erudition and the depth of your insight into subjects that present enormous difficulty, even for professional academics. Truth is, as someone whose knowledge of quantum physics is only fairly rudimentary and peripheral to the erstwhile professional pursuit of AI and cognitive science, I'm not sure that <i>I</i> feel at all competent to tackle some of these issues without further thought (and perhaps some consultation with the resident Ph.D. physicist :)). But I'll give it a shot. Anon. :)<br /><br />Regards,<br />PeterPeter Kenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03280487081194387790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3427479692989285926.post-81877398448849547842009-06-21T19:01:44.722+10:002009-06-21T19:01:44.722+10:00Hi Peter,
This is not a well-written essay, in th...Hi Peter,<br /><br />This is not a well-written essay, in that it doesn't have a well-structured argument with a definitive conclusion. More a collection of ideas with a core theme.<br /><br />I'm trying to provoke thought. Often, my writing is just a means of self-edification, resulting from what I've read. Subjectivity kept rising to the surface, so that's what I wrote about.<br /><br />Regards, Paul.Paul P. Mealinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573615711151742992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3427479692989285926.post-47159549118447230642009-06-21T15:24:10.420+10:002009-06-21T15:24:10.420+10:00Hi Paul,
Pandora's box is now a gaping maw, de...Hi Paul,<br />Pandora's box is now a gaping maw, demanding that I retrieve and reproduce the many, varied and probsbly inconsistent (inasmuch as it would be provably impossible for me to be consistent and complete at one and the same moment, or perhaps even over a lifetime) views I've had on the subjects of consciousness, sentience, Heisenbergian uncertainty, solipsism, the Copenhagen Interpretation, the Many Worlds Interpretation, the relationship of metatheory to theory, the wholly inexplicable yet apparent inability of spectacularly brilliant scientists to distinguish between functioning model-theoretic constructs and the things they ostensibly model, the meaning of "reality," and why life sucks. (It's the latter that occupies most of my attention these days, but I haven't altogether forgotten my febrile ratiocinations and state of transcendental exasperation induced by contemplation of most of the former.) But I didn't want you to think I was ignoring you. :) Tell you what: I think I'll sleep on it, except perhaps to express my eternal annoyance with Bohr for his admonition to Einstein that he (Einstein) had no business telling God what to do, when quite obviously, Einstein was doing nothing of the kind, and none of this has much, if anything, to do with theology, and I am, myself, wholly sympathetic to Einstein's views about dice and the general dicey-ness of having things two ways (or all ways, or no ways) at once, and not only probabilistically: those are views I actually do hold, and not as the result of a collapsed wave function, whereas somewhere there's an ancient cat that strongly resembles me (in my current decrepitude) and yet holds entirely disparate views, except at those times when it's dead, so I can tell you that I, for one, am not about to go opening any boxes filled with Rube Goldberg contraptions that release poison gas, and what kind of mind would come up with such a thing, anyway? Yes, yes, I know: there's a problem in reconciling two different models that both reliably satisfy the criterion of predictive accuracy with respect to physical phenomena insofar as we can observe them and choose to observe them and believe that we're observing them (or ignore the issue entirely) at what might plausibly be construed to be the relevant descriptive level, but then, models aren't reality and isomorphisms of isomorphisms of isomorphisms aren't the thing itself, either, and I'm just getting exasperated again, and Hofstadter's said it all at least as well as James Joyce in Finnegans Wake, so I'm going to sleep now, all aleph-zero versions of me, and riverrun past multiverses of bad poetry and worse science, past Eve's and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay, brings us by a commodius(and probably Moebius) vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs. Cheers!<br />Regards, PeterPeter Kenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03280487081194387790noreply@blogger.com