Fresco, I understand what you're saying. I just don't agree with it.
fresco wrote:[Setanta] wrote:Reality does not shift as paradigms shift
But that position is the epitome of "a priviledged one". Einstein himself overthrew such a theologally important position with his rejection of Newton's "fixed frame of reference". And he himself was obliged to concede his view of "reality" in the light of the failure of his challenge to QM with respect to "non-locality".
Einstein contended that the speed of light is the same for all non-accelerating observers, regardless of their frame of reference. (Since "speed" is distance over time, and time is given an equal footing with spatial dimensions, it seems that at least one physicist believed in the existence of time.)
Quote:All "information" is subject(s) dependent. Note also that in a celebrated experiment by Asch, a subject would "mis-report" what he saw in a simple picture in order to conform with the staged reports of stooges posing as fellow subjects.
I agree that we each create our own perceptions of reality, but there has to be an underlying ontic reality which is the source of both the brain and the sensory data which it uses to construct its ideas. We may modify our perceptions based on what others tell us, but consensus may not reflect Truth. And if there were not an ontic reality, how could Asch's subjects be "wrong" in their reports
unless reality can be determined by majority vote instead of consensus?
Quote:For example the "identity" (persistence) of "an animal" lies within its "organization" and not its "structural composition". An organism continuously exchanges and assimilates matter from its environment like a tornado exhanges debris and air molecules. For Maturana it does NOT exchange "information" because that presupposes a separate "cognitive system" to organizational assimilation of "matter". Thus Maturana takes a deflationist and behaviourist view of "thinking" and sees it as an epiphenomenon of "languaging" i.e. a covert physical activity (in our parlance).
This would seem to be at odds with your previous assertions. I thought that the whole point of your argument is that the information exchange is all that is real. Are you now saying that the organism, the matter, and the environment actually exist, or are they still figments of your imagination? And once again, did matter, organisms and environment predate languaging?
Quote:Maturana bases his ideas partly on Prigogine's demonstration of the appearance of spontaneous structure in complex dynamic processes far from equilibrium.
I doubt that Maturana is correctly applying Prigogine's work on thermodynamics.
You have a tendency to throw in made-up words (such as "languaging" and "thingers" and "structural coupling"), reference scientists whose work is not actually applicable to the subject, and throw out red herrings (or turtles) to divert attention from your failure to respond to direct questions. Setanta kindly reminded you of what the questions were. How about some answers?
Quote:(BTW You kept talking about (1) before (2) sentience, but even physicists have agreed that (1) time is (2) a psychological construct. Ergo "before sentience" is vacuous from the metaphysical position ).
Physicists pretty much agree that time really exists. The perception of time is psychological, but its existence is a necessary part of any scientific paradigm. Biologists agree that there was non-sentient life for billions of years before sentience. What is vacuous is this metaphysical position, itself.