[FRIAM] Peirce & Postmordernism

[Gary Schiltz]

The observer problem. Does it require a human to do the observation? What
about a parrot? A chimpanzee? An amoeba? A Turing machine?

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 9:47 AM Prof David West <profwest at fastmail.fm>
wrote:

> Peirce:
>
> "To satisfy our doubts, therefore, it is necessary that a method should be
> found by which our beliefs may be determined by nothing human, but by some
> external permanency—by something upon which our thinking has no effect. ...
> Such is  the method of science. Its fundamental hypothesis, restated in
> more familiar language, is this: There are Real things, whose characters
> are entirely independent of our opinions about them; those Reals affect our
> senses according to regular laws, and, though our sensations are as
> different as our relations to the objects, yet, by taking advantage of the
> laws of perception, we can ascertain by reasoning how things really and
> truly are; and any man, if he have sufficient experience and he reason
> enough about it, will be led to the one True conclusion."
>
> The above quote is a context from which I am about to take words and ask
> questions. Those more familiar with the Peirce corpus in toto must admonish
> me if I am being unfair, i.e. this quote is an outlier or an exception to
> Peirce in general.
>
> 1- If "There are Real things, upon which our thinking has no effect," and
> there are"beliefs"" and "doubts" and "reasoning" that are, arguably,
> affected by our thoughts:
>   a. Is Peirce a dualist? A Cartesian dualist that distinguishes between
> an external permanency and internal thought?
>   b. Are beliefs, doubts, reasoning 'Real things'?
>
> 2- Quantum physics has an "observer problem" that seems to imply that the
> the "characters of Real things" are, in fact, affected by human thinking,
> or, at least, human attention."
>   a. Are there 'Real things'?
>
> 3- Weak postmodern objection: all beliefs and all methods are determined
> by the human, technically the social, and there is no objective criteria by
> which to give privilege over one human determined method/belief over
> another..
>   a. Does Peirce have grounds to privilege Reason over other
> methods/beliefs, e.g.  'meditation', 'faith'?
>
> 4- Stronger postmodern objection: "the laws of perception," [the rules of]
> reasoning," "sufficient experience," and "reason enough," taken together,
> constrain the possible 'solution space' too severely; the 'one
> [provisionally] True conclusion" is foregone — a product of the process,
> not congruence with any "external permanency."
>   a. What are the "laws" that govern how the Real affects our senses?
>   b. What are the "laws of perception?"
>   c. Does "sufficient experience" and "reason enough" mandate a narrow,
> and intolerant, orthodoxy?
>
> davew
>
>
>
> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. .
> ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC>
> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200523/a90bece8/attachment.html>