[FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[uǝlƃ ☣]

I described experience as a comprehension. Then you say it's not that sort of thing. Then you go on to describe experience as a comprehension. 8^) I guess the problem is that I'm relying too much on that jargon? You describe 2 types of comprehension: O∞) the object versus On) the observers of the object.

I know this is pedestrian, but to see that these are both comprehensions, the wikipedia disambiguation page might help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehension 

To me, these 6 different things reduce to 2 different categories: {logical, the axiom, lists} versus {language, ideas}. The two things you identify O∞ and On fall into the 1st category. An experience is the act of slicing up and bundling together a new thing from what we find laying around in the ambient muck. O∞ -- the unified, total object, the elephant -- slices/rebundles in one way and On -- the super-set comprised of the subsets sliced/rebundled by each observer -- does it in another way. O∞ is stunted/approximated, as von Neumann tried to point out when claiming that the description of an object is an order higher than the object itself. Or, as Robert Rosen tried to point out by claiming "there is no largest model of a complex thing". The On comprehension isn't stunted like O∞. But it's a collective thing, which can't be sliced/rebundled by any one of us. And that means no _one_ of us can really grok it.


On 4/30/20 2:05 PM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
> I just don’t think “experience” is that sort of thing.  Experience is always a step from one thing to another.  A “unique experience” is like acceleration an instant.  A fiction that is useful for some purposes.  We know how to study the elephant; and we know how to study the uniqueness of the observers of the elephant.  But those are distinct objects of study. 

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ