Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id KAA19398 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Sat, 21 Apr 2001 10:24:39 +0100 Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 10:13:41 +0100 To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Levels of explanation (was Re: Determinism) Message-ID: <20010421101341.B402@ii01.org> References: <3ADD9D05.18383.14151C@localhost>; <20010419085926.A715@ii01.org> <3ADF1D2F.11367.443A02@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: <3ADF1D2F.11367.443A02@localhost>; from email@example.com on Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 05:15:27PM -0500 From: Robin Faichney <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 05:15:27PM -0500, email@example.com wrote:
> On 19 Apr 2001, at 8:59, Robin Faichney wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 01:56:21PM -0500, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > > On 18 Apr 2001, at 18:15, Robin Faichney wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr
> > 18, 2001 at 08:49:55AM -0400, Wade T.Smith wrote: > > > On 04/18/01
> > 05:52, Robin Faichney said this- > > > > > > >"we have to distinguish
> > > > > >between causation and conceptual framework translation" > > > >
> > > > OK, I know that's your manifesto at the moment, but, I have to
> > admit > > > I'm fuzzy on what 'conceptual framework translation'
> > actually _is_. > > > > > > What is being translated and into what
> > language? > > > > Genetics, when you get to a certain level of detail,
> > requires the > > language of chemistry, rather than that of biology
> > (biochemistry, > > microbiology, whatever -- you get the idea).
> > Similar translations are > > required whenever we shift between levels
> > of explanation. It's the > > different concepts that apply within
> > them that distinguish between > > levels. > > > And now, for his next
> > act, the amazing linguistic prestidigitator (or > is that
> > prestianaloguer?) Robin Faichney will fully explain self- > conscious
> > awareness using nothing more than the elementary laws > of physics and
> > the Periodic Table of Elements! Let's give him a > round of applause,
> > ladies and gents!
> > Chemisty and biology are differentiated by the levels of explanation
> > with which they deal, but both use objective methodology. With
> > "self-conscious awareness" subjectivity comes into the picture, and
> > that is irreducible.
> Just like the emergent self-conscious awareness with respect to
> the material substrate brain.
I wish you'd give just a moment's thought to what I say. "Emergent
self-conscious awareness" is not "just like" subjectivity, it IS
subjectivity. I'm agreeing with you, and you with me!
> It is much easier to observe mutual
> causation between them than it is to explain the former in the
> lexicon of the latter; in fact, such explanation is impossible, as you
> noted, and constitutes what is known as the 'hard problem' of
> neuroscience; the physiological explanation of the subjective
> experiential perception of qualia.
I've often thought it remarkable how easy you seem to find it to solve
the "hard problem" -- just utter the words "emergent materialism" and
it vanishes in a puff of smoke!
-- Robin Faichney Get your Meta-Information from http://www.ii01.org (CAUTION: contains philosophy, may cause heads to spin)
=============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 21 2001 - 10:27:58 BST