SUO: RE: Discussion Period on Motion by Matthew West
Dear Jon,
See comments below.
Matthew West
Principal Consultant
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawbrey@att.net]
> Sent: 04 September 2003 12:02
> To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE
> Cc: SUO
> Subject: 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.
MW: OK. I agree there is reality. I was thinking in terms that
the objects we descriminate relate to our theories of the world,
and they might be different, but they are still what we extract
from reality.
>
> 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
>
>