The ontological assumptions of science.

fresco wrote:

No Setanta, it is you who needs to keep replaying a toe stubbing scenario in your head and in order to imagine the proxy "pain" as a non verbal "evidence" of your "reality". My position, that "rock's properties" are merely "statements" or "languaging actions" made by organisms seeking control of their parochial interactive experiences, completely escapes you in its pofundity.

Well, given the apparent size of your ego, i now conclude that you head is so swelled that you would easily float over any rocks in your path.

What you allege to be profundity is what the Old Junker described as the rage of dreaming sheep.

You have no case, and no amount of verbiage you deploy, nor sneers which you launch at those who will not agree with you, will change that. How very petty your are become.

0 Replies

Setanta,

"launching sneers"....I love it !

Whatever prowess I possess in that activity I owe to Joe as a master exponent. In fact that seems to be his pre-occupation on A2K.

Let me know if you make anythng of that reading I quoted because that nicely deals with the"profundity" issue. If, of course, you can't be bothered or are now not going to read it on principle, you still have my best regards.

0 Replies

fresco

I haven't been following the thread lately, so pardon me if I address issues that have been cleared up already.

But I am a little unclear on your position.
Are you suggesting that there is no such thing as ontic reality?
Or that ontic reality is inaccessible to us as anything but an abstract concept, since all our means of measurement and observation are in themselves things of conceptual reality?

0 Replies

Cyracuz.

Maturana suggests that our concept of "an objective world" is a result of our nature as specific (languaging) "observers". There is no fixed "ontic reality" but merely a projection of an external world as a reflection of paradigmatic consenus via common language and a mutual praxis of living. In essence we overlook our "observer status" and assume a world "exists" without us to "bring it forth".

0 Replies

The fact that an amount of material exhibits inertia demonstrates it has mass.

The amount of material does not "care" what or who is observing it, nor in fact if anyone or any thing is observing it at all, nor whether there is or is not a consensus of experts or layman as to its inertia and thus its mass.

In a universe devoid of beings or things able to make observations, an amount of material will still have inertia and thus still have mass.

It makes no difference if the universe is devoid of beings or things able to make observations, because inertia is an inherent property of mass.

In fact there could not be a universe without material having inertia and thus mass.

Note when I make reference to an amount of material I am not making reference to atomic or subatomic amounts, so QT arguments are dubious.

0 Replies

Chumly,

Maturana would appear to be "a materialist" in as much that his biological substrates (autpoietic structures) operate at the "molecular level". Given that all systems need at least one axiom. this one does not seem to disagree with a nominal concept of "matter" though he might argue that any "measurement" beyond this level is a matter of consensual operations rather than indicative of an external "reality". Thus he would argue that the idea that "inertia" is a property of mass is an observer projection with respect to anticipated "measurement procedures" by a standard observer. i.e Properties are NOT aspects of "the world" they are language tokens representing potential interactions of an observer with his environment. This is the fundamental issue which "realists" find so difficult to comprehend.

(See the Maturana quotation above for exposition of "standard observer")

0 Replies

That's fine as far as it goes, but it does not appear to address my claim that in a universe devoid of beings or things able to make observations, an amount of material will still have inertia and thus still have mass even if there is no "measurement" akin to consensual operations.

I'm not trying to be disagreeable or conformational, just curious.

I suggest that logic dictates there needs to be a reason to expect that in a universe devoid of beings or things able to make observations, an amount of material will have inertia but not mass.

Again with the caveat that when I make reference to an amount of material I am not making reference to atomic or subatomic amounts, so QT arguments are dubious.

0 Replies

I cannot conceive of a universe devoid of an observer. Surely we are still "there" observing with our "mind's eye" whenever we speak of it. To assume otherwise is a psychological sleight of hand like removing "down" whilst claiming to leave "up".

0 Replies

The heat death of the universe represents such a condition and it would by definition be devoid of an observer.

That man can in some sense conceive / imagine the heat death of the universe does not in and of itself suggest that man can be an observer of the heat death of the universe.

I suggest there needs to be a reason to expect that at the point of the heat death of the universe an amount of material will have inertia but not mass.

0 Replies

Fresco,

Of course I sympathize with your quixotic efforts to exam questions nondualistically. I grimace at the jibes you've withstood, even though they have been "reasonable" from the dualistic perspectives they express.

You say above that you cannot conceive of a universe devoid of an observer. Even your inabiity to have such a conception entails an observer. I feel the same, and in addition I cannot conceive of an observer without a universe. Indeed, each is essential for the other's existence.

The ontology of science has, if we go back far enough, been almost wholly dualistic, given the materialistic dualism of John Locke in his binary conception of matter and void as exhausting, with the dichotomy of observer and observed, the content of reality. But as science has evolved it seems, as so many of your posts indicate, that dualism is not one of its foundations. I'm thinking, of course, of Heisenberg and the growing insights of quantum physics.

0 Replies

JLN,

Good to hear us !

Chumly,

If you agree that "time" is a psychological construct then all scenarios "in time" like eventual happenings are themselves psychological projections being played out now in our heads according to current consensual paradigms. Since this urge, for languaging observers to predict according to paradigm, is sufficiently powerful to produce religious extremists who commit suicide according to their parochial consensus, it should be no surprise to us that such "power" manifests itself generally in a normal concept of "ontic reality" such that the average person has great difficulty suspending such an idea.

0 Replies

Thanks Fresco,

I'll have to think about it all some more before I have any further views, thanks for the insights!

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Maturana would appear to be "a materialist" in as much that his biological substrates (autpoietic structures) operate at the "molecular level". Given that all systems need at least one axiom. this one does not seem to disagree with a nominal concept of "matter" though he might argue that any "measurement" beyond this level is a matter of consensual operations rather than indicative of an external "reality".

What an incredible concession. Really, it's absolutely baffling, especially coming from you, fresco. I can understand how someone else -- even Maturana -- might admit that any formal set of propositions requires at least one axiom that is not provable by that set of propositions. After all, that's Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. But then Gödel relied on logic to show that his theorem was correct, and you've dismissed logic as just so much "seminar philosophy." Given your rejection of logic, then, the fact that you apparently now accept that Maturana's philosophy must rely on at least one outside axiom is indeed puzzling, but I suppose it merely highlights your general inconsistency in this and other philosophical matters.

As for Maturana accepting that biological structures operate at the molecular level, while arguing that everything else is just "languaging," that has to be one of the most idiotic things I've ever read. Maturana would be better off saying that everything is made of pixie dust or fairy droppings rather than molecules, since molecules differ only in size from other objects that are easily observed but which Maturana apparently thinks exist only in the observers' heads. Maintaining that everything is made of pixie dust would, at least, save Maturana from having to explain how realism works on one level of observation but not on another. In contrast, saying that everything is languaging except molecules (or the structures that operate at a molecular level) makes absolutely no sense (in truth, Maturana must maintain that there is at least one other thing that isn't "languaging:" i.e. "languaging").

Furthermore, to contend that Maturana "might argue that any 'measurement' beyond this level is a matter of consensual operations rather than indicative of an external 'reality'" strains credulity. It's rather like saying that we may regard the constituent parts of a house -- the bricks, mortar, lumber, etc. -- to be real, but the house itself isn't. But then I've come to expect that kind of muddleheaded thinking from you, fresco. It's why I always look forward to reading your posts.

0 Replies

Joe,

As usual you fail to grasp some key issues because you are bent on rhetorical demolition. However, I think your question is worthy of consideration despite the adversarial garbage you feel obliged to litter it with.

Quote:

Maturana asks: 'What makes a living system a living system?'

He explains: all organisms consist of one or more cells and all cells arise from pre-existing cells. The cell membrane distinguishes the cell from its environment, and it is across this boundary that the interactions occur which are the process of life. The cell secretes molecules into its surrounding medium and processes incoming molecules.

Although living systems are closed networks of molecular productions, they are open to the flow of molecules. The living system is the dynamics of the molecules, not the molecules themselves. By way of explanation Maturana uses the illustration of a tornado: it is the dynamics of the particles in the tornado, not an entity, that is called 'tornado'. Particles get swept up into it and then are dropped, but the tornado goes on.
Living systems are networks of molecules, in which the molecules they produce participate in the production of the molecules that produce them. A living system generates and specifies its own organisation through its production of its own components. Maturana and Varela called this autopoiesis (1987).

Maturana's Biology and Some Possible Implications for Education
by J. Murray

Maturana applauds "science" provided that we recognize it is about coupled domains of "scientific activity", not "ontic reality". All "activities" are geared to his concept of autpoiesis i.e. sustaining of the unity of the organism. In as much that we interrelate our activities involving linguistic tokens called "molecules" we can relate the token "life" to the organizational dynamics of such molecules in so far as they "serve" the concept of autopoiesis.

So in my opinion Maturana is a "materialist" in that he acknowledges the axiomatic functionality of the concept of "molecules" with respect to his exposition even though he denies their "ontic reality". This is for me equivalent to the distinction involved Ryle's discussion of a "category mistake" when he points out that "the university"(life) is not "its buildings"(molecules) even though a layman may conceive of it as such as he passes "it" on the bus.

Maturana's handling of "logic" is also idiosyncratic (non-Aristotelian) since he tends to circular rather than linear argument in order to reflect the essential homeostatic nature of life.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

But as science has evolved it seems, as so many of your posts indicate, that dualism is not one of its foundations. I'm thinking, of course, of Heisenberg and the growing insights of quantum physics.

Most scientists believe that the universe existed for 13 billion years before we were around to observe it. They seem to think that galaxies, nebula, and stars formed without anyone to "bring them forth" by observing the process, and that life evolved without the necessity of an observer (or a creator). Chemical and physical processes apparently take place in far corners of the earth even though no one is watching. Yes, the act of measurement affects certain quantum events, but there are many interpretations of quantum theory and the majority do not require an observer. Comparison table

0 Replies

Fresco, you still haven't answered any of my questions.

What "censorship committee" refused to read Maturana's material, and why?

Quote:

There is no fixed "ontic reality" but merely a projection of an external world as a reflection of paradigmatic consenus via common language and a mutual praxis of living. In essence we overlook our "observer status" and assume a world "exists" without us to "bring it forth".

If there is no ontic reality, where did the observers come from?

How do they "bring forth" an imaginary world if there is no pre-existing reality? Where did they get the knowledge to create it? Why do so many observers create worlds in which they are unhappy?

How do the observers communicate with each other if there are no actual photons to carry information back and forth? By magic?

Quote:

Properties are NOT aspects of "the world" they are language tokens representing potential interactions of an observer with his environment. This is the fundamental issue which "realists" find so difficult to comprehend.

I find it difficult to comprehend why anyone would have invented "language tokens" for imaginary properties. If the environment does not actually exist, how can the observer have any potential interactions with it?

Quote:

I cannot conceive of a universe devoid of an observer.

I'm sorry you have such a limited imagination. I have no problem conceiving of a universe in which life has not evolved, but agree with JLN that I cannot conceive of an observer without anything to observe.

Quote:

Living systems are networks of molecules, in which the molecules they produce participate in the production of the molecules that produce them. A living system generates and specifies its own organisation through its production of its own components.

Presumably Maturana is talking about DNA, RNA and proteins. How did these molecules exist and function before the languaging observers had any concept of them?

Quote:

Maturana applauds "science" provided that we recognize it is about coupled domains of "scientific activity", not "ontic reality".

Does he ever actually state that an ontic reality does not exist, or is that just your interpretation of his writings?

Quote:

Maturana's handling of "logic" is also idiosyncratic (non-Aristotelian) since he tends to circular rather than linear argument in order to reflect the essential homeostatic nature of life.

Circular logic. Of course. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

I'm still waiting for your response to these questions:

Please post your reference for any experimental evidence that an ontic reality does not exist. Do you honestly believe that the universe did not come into existence until there were observers to talk about it? Then where did the observers come from? How did they communicate before they invented photons?

How do fish and other non-languaging animals interact with the world if there is no ontic reality?

What is the functional value in claiming that there is no ontic reality, when we have to deal with the world as if it is really there anyway? Can observers create or change reality simply by agreeing on what is true? Do you know of any instances where this has been documented?

Why do people die in automobile accidents? If there is no ontic reality and the consensus of all of the victims, police, paramedics, doctors, and family members is that they should live, who got together and decided that they would die?

Another question for you to ignore: Did canals exist on Mars while people believed in and talked about them, only to vanish when better telescopes were invented?

0 Replies

I can accept the existence of an "ontic reality" if it includes both the observer and observed as an interactional unity--much as the Cosmos is at both ends of the telescope. I do not accept a reality that is bifurcated into something objective "out there" and something subjective "in here". The subjective is an objective fact and the objective world is seen as such in terms of our grand intersubjective paradigmatic consensual strategy: Culture.

0 Replies

Terry,

Imagine yourself trying to explain your concept of "scientific evidence" to an Azande who according to Evans-Pritchard, the anthropologist, based their "rationality" on a concept of "witchcraft" to account for aberrant behavior. When a Western judicial system was imposed upon them and subjected their wrongdoers to a trial involving conventional "evidence", the tribal elders would ignore such any "verdict" until its "veracity" was confirmed or otherwise by examination of the behaviour of a ritually poisoned chicken. The point made by anthropologists is that Westerners cannot claim a "superior" rationality, merely a different one.( BTW *Religionists might note that "Satanic influences" are not far from Azande thinking).

Now my problem with your "questions" is that you are like the Azande in so far that your rationality is entrenched in a paradigm of "ontic reality" which "exists" independent of "observers". You do not see that as A paradigmatic rationality but THE rationality. You therefore cannot even begin to accept statements like Maturana's that "information does not exist for an organism interacting with its medium, only for an observer involved in a descriptive activity in another domain." For you there is no distinction between "activity" and "description of activity", or beween "adaptation to a perturbation" and "acting on information". For you there is no distiction between "medium" (the organism's domain) and "environment" (an observer's domain) You are like the Azande who see their "reality"(of Witchraft) being all pervading.

So, Terry, unless you are prepared to heed the indications of Kuhn and others that "science" is a social activity between consensual observers subject to paradigmatic shifts and NOT based on the quest for revelation of some independent "reality", you cannot take even a first step to understanding Maturana. If on the other hand you find you are prepared to take the bold step of suspending your preconceptions of the meaning of terms like "science" "information" "communication" etc etc, you will find that many of your "questions" will simply evaporate.

0 Replies

JLN,

The "ontic reality" pf Maturana represents the preconceptions that most observers have of a "reality" existing independently of an observer. It is a concept which Maturana utilizes to kick against in order to establish the coherence of his own system. But I suggest that the "reality"of nonduality to which we refer although consistent with Maturana's general insights is still in a sense is transcendent of them because even the "dynamics of interaction" becomes suspended within an ultimate quiescence.

0 Replies

The ontological assumptions of science.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know