[FRIAM] Peirce & Postmordernism
Steve Smith
sasmyth at swcp.com
Sat May 23 15:57:28 EDT 2020
On 5/23/20 9:15 AM, Gary Schiltz wrote:
> The observer problem. Does it require a human to do the observation?
> What about a parrot? A chimpanzee? An amoeba? A Turing machine?
God, Gawdess, Gaia, Collective Intelligence?
>
> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 9:47 AM Prof David West <profwest at fastmail.fm
> <mailto: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
> <http://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/
>
>
> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> 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-comic.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200523/50beea7b/attachment.html>
More information about the Friam
mailing list