From: "Phil Roberts, Jr." 
Subject: Re: materialism sucks
Date: 1997/04/17
Message-ID: <335669BA


Mark P. Line wrote:
> 
> Phil Roberts, Jr. wrote:
> >
> 
> When you consider the number of quarks, leptons and carrier particles
> interacting to make what we call an automobile, it is not at all
> reasonable to assume that the degree of individual variation is less
> than in a living organism of only a fraction of the mass.
> 
> So whatever it is you'd like to establish with this ostensible greater
> individual variation of humans, you'll have to find another way to
> establish it.
>

Obviously, for the half a dozen people on the planet who think that 1000
lb rocks are likely to exhibit more individuality that 150 lb teenagers,
I quess my methodology won't be of much use.
 
> > > How about the individualization among spiral galaxies?
> >
> > In these particular cases, the correct term is not individual-
> > ization, but lateral noise (lateral order = taxonomic order, vertical =
> > dynamic order).  Individualization refers to lateral variation
> > superimposed on an underlying isomorphism.
>
> And how is it that you _know_ that this does not obtain for spiral
> galaxies?
>

As employed in my paper, individualization refers to an entropy in lateral
order in systems which exhibit organized complexity at the macroscopic
level of description rather than as random aggregates of matter.  I believe 
this to be loosely in line with our every
day use of the word 'individuality' in which it is commonly used 
to refer to living organisms which exhibit some degree of personality.

> > >
> > > How could you possibly have the wherewithal to _presume_ what parts of
> > > the human mind are most rampantly individualized?
> >
> > By identifying the "cause" of the individualization, as I have explained
> > in the paper itself.
> 
> I should have known. You know because you've figured it out. Silly me.
>

Actually, without having read the paper you shouldn't have known anything
which, as near as I can tell, you don't, at least not with regard to
my hypothesis about the etiology of individualization in homo sapiens.
 
> 
> Your methodology is supposed to provide the means to objectively observe
> the mind. 

No.  I am supposing that objectivity is a bit of a myth, that the best we
humans can do is employ intersubjective reproducibility so that we can all
keep an eye on each other and try to keep the subjectivity to a minimum.

> But your methodology presupposes that you have already
> objectively observed the mind, 

No, introspectively observed the mind, restricting my scientific claims to
only those features it is reasonable to suppose we have in common.

> thus leading you to claim that you've
> identified the "cause" of individualization. 

Yes, I believe I have indeed identified the "cause" of the individualization
and thus identified the true "cause" of psychology's sluggish development
as a science.  And since my analysis suggests its an order problem rather than
a privacy problem, it obviously entails a radically different solution than
the one advocated by behavioral approaches.

-- 

Phil Roberts, Jr.
Feelings of Worthlessness from the Perspective of
So-Called Cognitive Science
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5476