From: "Mark P. Line" 
Subject: Re: materialism sucks
Date: 1997/04/18
Message-ID: <33573D55


Phil Roberts, Jr. wrote:
> 
> 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.

I doubt there's a physical scientist alive on the planet who thinks that
150# teenager necessarily exhibit more individual variation than 1000#
rocks. That's a lot more than 6 people.



> > > > 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.

You didn't answer my question. How is it that you _know_ that the
attribute of individuality so defined does not obtain for spiral
galaxies?


> > 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.

Then let me rephrase my comment:

Your methodology is supposed to provide the means to employ
intersubjective reproducibility in introspectively observing the mind.
But your methodology presupposes that you have _already_ introspectively
observed the mind.


-- Mark

(Mark P. Line  --  Bellevue, Washington  --  )