OF THE TRIVIAL VS. THE MEANINGFUL: The trivial I can know; the non-trivial (meaningful) I can only appreciate. All that I can “know” — apart from trivialities, definitional truisms, circular tautologies, and negations of negations that nevertheless flux in sequence among apprehensions of changed loci in space-time — consists in incomplete measures and comparisons of fluxing patterns within the logic gates of fluxing contexts, i.e., partial measures of relationships that appear to be quantitative only because entirely subsumed within the logic gates and digital filtering of the more encompassing and qualitative context of an observing “I-ness.” Indeed, I do not even know what “I” am, in any quantitative, as opposed to qualitative sense. Via Bayes’ Theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27_theorem), and logic gates contrived based on practical tinkering, I find that I improve my reliable skills with practice. For “practical skills” in relating to the non-trivial, it is vital that I accommodate myself to practical mentoring, education, and experience. For true “knowledge” of the non-trivial, not so much. As to the non-trivial, I know not; rather, I appreciate and apprehend. And my appreciation inclines me towards an unquantifiable quality of self fulfilling empowerment.
REGARDING MEANINGFUL AND PURPOSEFUL PREHENSION, APPREHENSION, SCIENCE, AND TELEOLOGY: Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument: Another variant makes an argument centering on consciousness. Physicist John Wheeler's assertion that the universe seems to require an observer reflects on design not as an external phenomenon, but intrinsic to consciousness. There thus is no search for a criterion of intelligence outside the universe being imposed on it or capable of revealing whether an intelligence has been injected into it; but rather, that consciousness recognizes itself as present in all of existence. Alfred Whitehead had made a similar argument in the early twentieth century. In defense of Whitehead's approach, Charles Hartshorne has written that the panentheism implicit in this argument evades the logical difficulties of the arguments from design of traditional theists. He asks how can a universe that is considered outside of the deity display the design of the being that is outside of? But in Whitehead's view, echoing that of George Berkeley, our very act of what he calls prehension provides us with first-hand evidence of the deity.
My Comment: “Prehension” seems to relate to what I have termed apprehension. Depending on purpose, focus, and context, a perspective of consciousness may conceptualize that it, along with all others like it, participates (via the quality of its apprehension) in guiding the unfolding of the relationships that we assume to constitute “physics.” If so, this concept implicates the incompleteness of mathematical measures of materialism, and apprehends a quality of participatory, uncertain, self-fulfilling empowerment for each perspective of consciousness. In this way, one may conceptualize, depending on one’s purposes, as if a system of relationships were consciously guided, materially determined, or empirically random. In each case, whatever the result, it could be reconciled to a choice of rationalization. The synchronizing reconciliation of observations and apprehensions of degrees of freedom may be conceptualized as implicating a holistic aspect of Consciousness that is beyond caring what IT might be named.
Quotes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument:
This viewpoint was encapsulated BY Stephen Jay Gould in his concept of Nonoverlapping Magesteria (NOMA), that proposes that science and religion should be considered two compatible, complementary fields, or "magisteria," whose authority does not overlap.
.... the idea of fundamental randomness, on which the naturalist interpretation of evolution rests is incompatible with the physics biologists agree to be fundamental.
....
Shapiro postulates a 'Third Way' (a non-creationist, non-Darwinian type of evolution):
What significance does an emerging interface between biology and information science hold for thinking about evolution? It opens up the possibility of addressing scientifically rather than ideologically the central issue so hotly contested by fundamentalists on both sides of the Creationist-Darwinist debate: Is there any guiding intelligence at work in the origin of species displaying exquisite adaptations that range from lambda prophage repression and the Krebs cycle through the mitotic apparatus and the eye to the immune system, mimicry, and social organization?
********
Quotes from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bayes-theorem/: Subjectivists think of learning as a process of belief revision in which a "prior" subjective probability P is replaced by a "posterior" probability Q that incorporates newly acquired information. This process proceeds in two stages. First, some of the subject's probabilities are directly altered by experience, intuition, memory, or some other non-inferential learning process. Second, the subject "updates" the rest of her opinions to bring them into line with her newly acquired knowledge.
....
Though a mathematical triviality, the (Bayes') Theorem's central insight — that a hypothesis is supported by any body of data it renders probable — lies at the heart of all subjectivist approaches to epistemology, statistics, and inductive logic.
NOTE: See also http://betterexplained.com/articles/an-intuitive-and-short-explanation-of-bayes-theorem/.
My Comment: When conditions are novel, Bayes’ Theorem is often twisted like a crooked horse race. After the race is run, an intellectual re-studies and re-normalizes the factors and decides, Why yes, the actual result was probable all along! It’s just that the betting public had been duped by the wrong factors! How convenient! When one assumes all things and events are preset and predetermined, one easily cherry picks factors after the fact, to "prove" one's initial assumption, thereby to demonstrate the event was probable all along, and then call such factors the controlling factors, and perhaps even rationalize "laws" based thereon. Given that observable patterns are necessarily rationalize-able to such logic gates as happen to avail said observers, such circular rationalizations tend to be relatively easily done. What such methods of rationalization cannot explain, however, is when grooves for logic gates suddenly change or phase shift. Are such changes entirely and quantitatively determined by matter, or are they in some quality chosen or guided by consciousness?
REGARDING MEANINGFUL AND PURPOSEFUL PREHENSION, APPREHENSION, SCIENCE, AND TELEOLOGY: Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument: Another variant makes an argument centering on consciousness. Physicist John Wheeler's assertion that the universe seems to require an observer reflects on design not as an external phenomenon, but intrinsic to consciousness. There thus is no search for a criterion of intelligence outside the universe being imposed on it or capable of revealing whether an intelligence has been injected into it; but rather, that consciousness recognizes itself as present in all of existence. Alfred Whitehead had made a similar argument in the early twentieth century. In defense of Whitehead's approach, Charles Hartshorne has written that the panentheism implicit in this argument evades the logical difficulties of the arguments from design of traditional theists. He asks how can a universe that is considered outside of the deity display the design of the being that is outside of? But in Whitehead's view, echoing that of George Berkeley, our very act of what he calls prehension provides us with first-hand evidence of the deity.
My Comment: “Prehension” seems to relate to what I have termed apprehension. Depending on purpose, focus, and context, a perspective of consciousness may conceptualize that it, along with all others like it, participates (via the quality of its apprehension) in guiding the unfolding of the relationships that we assume to constitute “physics.” If so, this concept implicates the incompleteness of mathematical measures of materialism, and apprehends a quality of participatory, uncertain, self-fulfilling empowerment for each perspective of consciousness. In this way, one may conceptualize, depending on one’s purposes, as if a system of relationships were consciously guided, materially determined, or empirically random. In each case, whatever the result, it could be reconciled to a choice of rationalization. The synchronizing reconciliation of observations and apprehensions of degrees of freedom may be conceptualized as implicating a holistic aspect of Consciousness that is beyond caring what IT might be named.
Quotes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument:
This viewpoint was encapsulated BY Stephen Jay Gould in his concept of Nonoverlapping Magesteria (NOMA), that proposes that science and religion should be considered two compatible, complementary fields, or "magisteria," whose authority does not overlap.
.... the idea of fundamental randomness, on which the naturalist interpretation of evolution rests is incompatible with the physics biologists agree to be fundamental.
....
Shapiro postulates a 'Third Way' (a non-creationist, non-Darwinian type of evolution):
What significance does an emerging interface between biology and information science hold for thinking about evolution? It opens up the possibility of addressing scientifically rather than ideologically the central issue so hotly contested by fundamentalists on both sides of the Creationist-Darwinist debate: Is there any guiding intelligence at work in the origin of species displaying exquisite adaptations that range from lambda prophage repression and the Krebs cycle through the mitotic apparatus and the eye to the immune system, mimicry, and social organization?
********
Quotes from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bayes-theorem/: Subjectivists think of learning as a process of belief revision in which a "prior" subjective probability P is replaced by a "posterior" probability Q that incorporates newly acquired information. This process proceeds in two stages. First, some of the subject's probabilities are directly altered by experience, intuition, memory, or some other non-inferential learning process. Second, the subject "updates" the rest of her opinions to bring them into line with her newly acquired knowledge.
....
Though a mathematical triviality, the (Bayes') Theorem's central insight — that a hypothesis is supported by any body of data it renders probable — lies at the heart of all subjectivist approaches to epistemology, statistics, and inductive logic.
NOTE: See also http://betterexplained.com/articles/an-intuitive-and-short-explanation-of-bayes-theorem/.
My Comment: When conditions are novel, Bayes’ Theorem is often twisted like a crooked horse race. After the race is run, an intellectual re-studies and re-normalizes the factors and decides, Why yes, the actual result was probable all along! It’s just that the betting public had been duped by the wrong factors! How convenient! When one assumes all things and events are preset and predetermined, one easily cherry picks factors after the fact, to "prove" one's initial assumption, thereby to demonstrate the event was probable all along, and then call such factors the controlling factors, and perhaps even rationalize "laws" based thereon. Given that observable patterns are necessarily rationalize-able to such logic gates as happen to avail said observers, such circular rationalizations tend to be relatively easily done. What such methods of rationalization cannot explain, however, is when grooves for logic gates suddenly change or phase shift. Are such changes entirely and quantitatively determined by matter, or are they in some quality chosen or guided by consciousness?
1 comment:
Every choice that is made manifest implicates a change in the equality of the balance of the status quo. Every equation that defines a transpositional change necessarily marks a change in the equality of the status quo. By definition, the people, through their Representatives, effect changes in laws that are designed to incentive some behaviors and often to disincentive others. The fact that some relationships are deemed more worthy of availing politically financed incentives is not an indication that other relationships are thereby deprived of "rights." Rather, it is an indication that the sovereign people have made a choice that they prefer to incentive some relationships over others, often because they deem some relationships to be more conducive to sustaining decent civilization.
I notice that Gay Inc never argues that to parcel tax benefits to it would be conducive to sustaining decent civilization. Rather, they always argue that they have "rights." Well, no. There is no "right" to receive publically financed monetary or tax incentives unless Representatives of the public first enact such rights. So far, in main, they have not. So, the argument of "rights" is at least a misrepresentation, if not a lie. And relying on it suggests a weakness: That is, if Gay Inc. had a non-ludicrous argument that it would advance decent or better civilization to avail a tax status of "Gay filing jointly," etc., Gay Inc. would make it. So far, I have seen no such an argument, much less a credible one.
Post a Comment