[ExI] Sensory Reality

[JOSHUA JOB]

On Dec 23, 2009, at 1:00 PM, Aware wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 8:22 AM, JOSHUA JOB <nanite1018 at gmail.com>  
> wrote:
>> What importance does it have that you cannot magically "experience"
>> "things-in-themselves"? Outside of sort-of solving that symbol  
>> grounding
>> problem, it doesn't effect anything at all. We create a model of  
>> the world
>> based on our sense-perceptions of reality.
> "We" don't create a model of the world based on our sense-perceptions
> of reality. For the most part, "we" are not in that functional loop.
We most certainly are. Haven't you ever thought about something and  
changed your mind? Or noticed something new and figured out how to  
account for it? Someone brings up some fact in a debate, its new, and  
you revise your opinions. I am quite certain that it is YOU who are  
doing that, because you are aware of the process of revising your  
opinions. Sure, much of this process is automatized, and babies are  
largely unaware of the process, but as an adult human being, you are  
involved in the process of refining your model
> Most of us are not familiar or comfortable with recursion (the topic
> is near the top of my list for _A Child's Garden of Conceptual
> Archetypes), so even though we may have a schematically complete
> description of the above, we nevertheless feel that (based on our
> undeniable experience) somewhere in the system there must be such
> essentials as "qualia", "meaning", "free will" and "personal
> identity."  Never had it, don't need it.  Derivative, yes; essential,
> no.
Meaning is a relation between mental contents (which are  
representations of relations in the world, in most cases). Free will  
is simply the fact that you make decisions, i.e. the entity that is  
you does things, and it is you who chooses to do them. Personal  
identity is simply the representation you have of yourself. So they  
exist. And they are a necessary consequence of a being that is self- 
aware.
>> That model is based, necessarily
>> on those sense-perceptions. We revise our model continually based  
>> on all of
>> our sense-perceptions, and over time it gets better and better,  
>> closer and
>> closer to reality as it is "in-itself."
> While this is the popular position among the scientifically literate
> (including most of my friends), similar to the presumption that
> evolution continues to "perfect" its designs, with humans being "the
> most evolved" at present, it's easy enough to show that our scientific
> progress may be leading us in a present direction quite different from
> the direction we may be heading later.  If 50 years from now we
> commonly agree that we're living within a digital simulation, would
> you then say Newton or Einstein was closer to the absolute Truth of
> gravity?  The best we can aim for is not increasing "Truth", but
> increasing coherence over increasing context of observation.
Well evolution perfects its designs for the given context. Humans are  
just as evolved as alligators in that sense.

Just because our current theories are likely incorrect does not mean  
we aren't moving toward truth. Our work on our present theories is in  
the worst case necessary for us to rule them out is incorrect in some  
way, thereby eliminating another possibility (and likely in the  
process a whole class of possibilities along with it), thereby moving  
a bit closer toward a correct representation. The more things your  
model can predict (not explain, predict in advance) without getting  
some things wrong, the better it is. By saying that the most you can  
hope for is increased coherence and increased context of observation,  
you are saying that the most you can hope for is getting closer to the  
truth. After all, if you take the limit of increasing coherence and  
context of observation, what do you get? A true representation of  
reality. So you are moving in that direction, even if for some reason  
you (and many others in philosophy, particularly philosophy of  
science) do not think so for whatever reason.