SUO: Re: Discussion Period on Motion by Matthew West
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
JA = Jon Awbrey
MW = Matthew West
JA = Jon Awbrey
MW = Matthew West
JA: So I think I have a way of understanding the statement that
a state is just a complex property of a system. Some people
will call that system-thing the "reified system".
MW: It is that which takes on the state.
JA: Yes, the picky point that I think some people are trying
to make is that the data of experience or the results of
measurement are what we really have on hand, whereas the
system-thing is in the bush, as it were, at some remove
from immediate impressions, the object of possibly many
competing hypotheses that we form to explain why the
data are as they are.
MW: I'm not one of them, as you have probably guessed.
As noted below you can have any individual object
you want as long as you can demonstrate it has
a spatio-temporal extent.
JA: Yes, I have no qualms about pretending a hypothesis here and there,
but the question is whether the specifics of a given hypothesis
explain the data better than the many competing alternatives.
This is a stricter test than demonstrating mere consistency
or the projection of a possible extension in space and time.
JA: Morever, data can vary widely with changes among different bases
or frames of reference, whereas real objects are associated with
functions that remain invariant through transformations from one
frame to another, so it is a non-trivial step to relate the data
to the object.
MW: You seem to have some idea that there are some "real" objects.
What do you consider these to be?
I am working on the hypothesis that there is a reality.
I have not always been so realistic, but reality is
a persistent, if not always patient teacher, and
a sequence of recurring impressions of the type
that is commonly referred to as brute reactions,
the "dent" or "dint" of recalcitrant experience,
or just plain "hard knocks", have willme, nillme,
conduced me to adopt the hypothesis that there is
some kind of objective reality that produces these
impressions on my sphere of pathic, felt experience,
and which Reality or Nature ought to be my objective
to know better, if I have a clue what is good for me,
and so I am following out the consequences, practical
and theoretical, of that hypothesis, at least, until
some more viable alternative commands my attention.
After that, pretty much everything is up for grabs,
where to draw the boundaries that mutuantly define
the terms of "self" and "other", or more remotely,
"organism" and "environment", whether the spaces
of the boundary, the exterior, and the interior
split into many "objects" in the conventional
acceptance of the word, all that stuff I've
wondered about at different times, doing
my best to suspect the usual suspects,
and also to grill a few novel perps,
but things muddle up very quickly
after such clear beginnings,
as everyone is well aware.
But enough about me --
this is your party.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o