[extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant
lcorbin at rawbw.com
Thu Mar 29 07:00:11 UTC 2007
> I've been arguing against the Cartesian Theater in its many
> disguises in so many ways for so many years that I am truly
> at a loss with you [for having suggested that I, Jef, am making
> this kind of suggestion]
Well, reconsider what you wrote earlier:
> It's significant that you accept that there can be distortion in the
> sensory channels but fail to accept--or even consider--that
> when I say fnord "we have no simple direct unbiased access to
> reality, because we're embedded in it," fnord I mean that these
> biases run throughout the entire system that you consider you.
In the rather philosophic discussion we are having---wondering
how a person sees an object---we must say where to draw the
boundary of the person. I don't think (in this discussion)
it is right to draw the boundary of the person so tightly that his
or her sensory channels are outside. It was only this, and your
implication that the indirectness extended very very far (perhaps
infinitely far), that reminded me of the Cartesian Theatre. Sorry to
have perplexed you.
But I guess that you will not like this either: "The entire system
of a person---his higher brain functions down to his lower brain
functions down to V1-V4 and even including all the structures of
the eye---, that system directly sees an object. Or would you?
By the way, was that a test? I could see the word "fnord"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fnord . But knowing you, there
was probably something even more subtle underfoot :-)
Or---this would be a gas---you might have suspected that
I was skimming your writing so fast that I'd miss that word!
More information about the extropy-chat