Mercurial > hg > BCS
annotate brian_2025-03-03.txt @ 78:f7202bc8241a default tip
fn 5 repaired?
| author | Henry Thompson <ht@markup.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| date | Wed, 12 Mar 2025 14:28:45 +0000 |
| parents | 25a8e2822728 |
| children |
| rev | line source |
|---|---|
| 72 | 1 Four Working versions of GA in the files (A--D), plus the reference |
| 2 version | |
| 3 | |
| 4 Plan was to read those. But haven't. Again. So maybe we should do | |
| 5 that together. But larger things have | |
| 6 been on my mind. | |
| 7 | |
| 8 Did reread most of the reference version. It struck me as extremely | |
| 9 compressed, dense. A lot of mulling and consideration has been | |
| 10 cmopressed in a small amount of prose. | |
| 11 | |
| 12 Maybe I/we should just read through it and "let the thing breath", | |
| 13 [that is, try to expand that sort of density where we find it]. | |
| 14 | |
| 15 One consideration of whether the religious (not theological) | |
| 16 sensibility/attempt to tie the paper to religious themes -- how much | |
| 17 weight should that have? For the moment that sensibility has been in | |
| 18 the driver's seat. Not sure if that's best. Another possibility is | |
| 19 to let the metaphysical content be given voice, and then to comment on their | |
| 20 potential relation to religious sensibilities. In other words, give | |
| 21 more emphasis to the world views and ease up on the religious | |
| 22 impliciations. | |
| 23 | |
| 24 So, let this be an exposition of the metaphysics, and leave the | |
| 25 religious connection until later. | |
| 26 | |
| 27 The undone homework is the get ahold of what the narrative arc of the paper | |
| 28 is. It's not clear to me as it stands, but the above distinction is | |
| 29 maybe necessary for giving some clarity. | |
| 30 | |
| 31 Brian will have a look at classifying some paragraphs wrt to whether | |
| 32 the are primarily addressed towards exposition of the world view, or | |
| 33 exposition of its relation to religious sensibility. | |
| 34 | |
| 35 ===== 4 March ===== | |
| 36 | |
| 37 Brian has looked at sections 1&2 of the reference version. Doing a | |
| 38 classification seemed good, color-coding for yellow for relig-sens, | |
| 39 blue for exposition of world-view and green for the relationship. | |
| 40 | |
| 41 Section 2, pp 6--13, is almost all green. On 2nd reading, Brian says | |
| 42 "mostly redundant". | |
| 43 | |
| 44 ----- | |
| 45 Let's say that this thing should be less compressed, more relaxed, | |
| 46 easier to access for a non-academic audience | |
| 47 | |
| 48 1) Forget the 'G' part and r-s, just give a non-academic | |
| 49 version of the world-view, just stated, not so much defended; | |
| 50 | |
| 51 2) Another, given that, what are the implications for not r-s as | |
| 52 such, but the issues which have been dealt with by the religious | |
| 53 traditions | |
| 54 | |
| 55 I worry about both of these - that a sort of secular summary (i.e. 1) | |
| 56 will just devolve into a secular summary of 03 (Objects book) | |
| 57 | |
| 58 So given limited time, we focus on (2), relating the world-view to | |
| 59 r-s. | |
| 60 | |
| 61 Because although that's what R-V is trying to do, but it's pretty bad | |
| 62 at it. | |
| 63 | |
| 64 -------- | |
| 65 | |
| 66 Trying to mine/milk "the current state of science" to prop up or | |
| 67 ... the new world-view (ref. O3) and from that to derive morals. | |
| 68 | |
| 69 But a) the current state of science is not well enough articulated | |
| 70 to give the reader a sense of the new world-view | |
| 71 b) and it doesn't actually make the connection | |
| 72 to lead the reader to a morality | |
| 73 | |
| 74 More seriously, the curret state of science doesn't so much compel the | |
| 75 new world view as make room for it | |
| 76 | |
| 77 Does this mean that O3 needs to be updated to take account of what has | |
| 78 happened since (e.g. LMMs). And to articulate the new world view. | |
| 79 | |
| 80 So how, given that we can't "full on" deliver the new wv here, what is | |
| 81 the minimum necessary to declare victory -- what GA might/should do is | |
| 82 to just _state_ the nwv, w/o trying to convincingly/thoroughly argue | |
| 83 for it. | |
| 84 | |
| 85 ================10/3===== | |
| 86 | |
| 87 The picture of science as it stands is not clear enough/compelling | |
| 88 enough to support the morals I want to draw from it. | |
| 89 | |
|
73
4426e1a7ddd5
near the end of March visit
Henry Thompson <ht@markup.co.uk>
parents:
72
diff
changeset
|
90 ---------New section 1------- |
|
4426e1a7ddd5
near the end of March visit
Henry Thompson <ht@markup.co.uk>
parents:
72
diff
changeset
|
91 Look, these two sets of sensibilities can't be treated |
| 72 | 92 as independent anymore, because the subject matter of r-s have in fact |
| 93 been domesticated by scientific results. | |
| 94 | |
| 95 For example, the views that C. was attributing to FK, are that these | |
| 96 two world-views. Maybe 'Quietist' should be 'Compatabilist', because | |
| 97 FK was saying science is (just) an articulation of the glory of God's | |
| 98 creation. _Ad maioram Dei gloriam_ | |
| 99 | |
| 100 [HST summarises: The Quietist says "yes, the scientists are doing a | |
| 101 great job on Question 1, and it gets better all the time, but that has | |
| 102 nothing to do with Question 2: for that I have the Church"] | |
| 103 | |
| 75 | 104 >>>>>>>>>>side tracks???>>>>>>>>> |
| 72 | 105 Is there anything like a consensus/received wisdom as to what those |
| 106 two forms of understanding are? On the science side, people might | |
| 107 assume that it's causal explanations (mechanism). The (r-s?) critique | |
| 108 of that might be that the pure mechanism story can't even account for | |
| 109 physical objects, to say nothing of | |
| 110 intentionality/reference/social/purpose/beauty/love/humaneness. | |
| 111 | |
| 112 Call the Scientific world=view the scientific _register_. | |
| 113 | |
| 114 We've shifted from what can be said in the scientific register to what | |
| 115 the scientific register is incapable of explaining. | |
| 116 | |
| 117 [HST: | |
| 118 The Scientific ideological _claim_ wrt the s-r is that it's complete and sufficient. | |
| 119 | |
| 120 The Compatablilist position is that it's self-consistent, but _not_ sufficient. | |
| 121 ] | |
| 122 | |
| 123 [HST: what's the other one?] | |
| 124 | |
| 125 [HST: write a two-page version? A skeleton] | |
| 75 | 126 <<<<<<<<<<end of side tracks>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
| 72 | 127 |
| 75 | 128 The ideological claim wrt the s-r is that it's complete and sufficient. |
| 129 | |
| 130 This (that these forms of thinking are distinct) is no longer a | |
| 131 tenable division. [I.e. the compatibilist is mistaken] | |
| 132 | |
| 133 These two sets of world-views are no longer tenably opposed. Because | |
| 134 people are trying to corral a whole bunch of topics into the scientific | |
| 135 ones. | |
| 136 | |
| 137 There are many topics which classically had been thought to fall into | |
| 138 the [r-s] category which are being explored in something like the | |
| 139 scientific one. So, bottom-line, the whole distinction needs to be | |
| 140 rethought. | |
| 141 | |
| 142 -----End of new section one----- | |
| 143 | |
| 144 Next would be an informal account of the structure of intentionality? | |
| 145 | |
| 146 If we look at that the structure of intentionality in light of | |
| 147 physical science it will turn out that the intentional stuff has | |
| 148 properties that are associated with [r-s]. So the essentially | |
| 149 infinite structure and complexity of the world, the fact that | |
| 150 descriptions are partial and inadequate. | |
| 151 | |
| 152 Or, [BCS] has spent the last 50 years trying to formulate a theory of | |
| 153 intentionality compatible with the physical sciences, but it turns out | |
| 154 that the character of intentionality that you get if you do that has | |
| 155 many properties that have classically been assumed to lie within | |
| 156 [r-s]. | |
| 157 | |
| 158 Or, the story [BCS] is trying to tell here is _BCS's_ world-view. | |
| 159 It's not necessarily anyone else's. What is it? | |
| 160 | |
| 161 a) A story about intentionality that's compatible with physics; | |
| 162 | |
| 163 b) A recognition that if this is the character of intentionality, | |
| 164 and if we are currently using it, in other words, go | |
| 165 ... | |
| 166 What does the world look like from within that view of | |
| 167 intentionality? | |
| 168 | |
| 169 OR | |
| 170 | |
| 171 1) This is a place where BCS can state / give voice to his view of | |
| 172 intentionality; | |
| 173 | |
| 174 2) There's a kind of first-person perspective which he's shifting | |
| 175 to, as opposed to a third-person perspective. Perhaps not | |
| 176 necessary, but it's at least lurking... | |
| 72 | 177 |
| 178 ---------------- | |
| 76 | 179 |
| 180 Reverting to new section 1, says Brian later -- won't readers mostly | |
| 181 say, of the list I offer [altruism...fidelity], "That's nothing to do | |
| 182 with religion". Just qualifying the assertion, to, 'some [r-s] people | |
| 183 have said that's their business'. | |
| 184 | |
| 185 How about "these topics are topics that people have felt have a | |
| 186 religious dimension" or "to which religious sensibilities are | |
| 187 germane". | |
| 188 | |
| 189 HST: What is it that a Scientist would recognise and accept as a) | |
| 190 non-mechanism and b) relevant to their own Scientific business. | |
| 191 | |
| 192 BCS: Non-effective relations, which the CR book is all about... | |
| 193 | |
| 194 HST what underlies the claim of vast significance for intentionality: | |
| 195 BCS: All the normative predicates are underlain by non-effective | |
| 196 relations, truth for example | |
| 197 | |
| 198 | |
| 199 WARNING: BCS: It's not too late to add a sentence to that effective to | |
| 200 the CR book. | |
| 201 | |
| 202 HST, wrt [19]: not just truly recognise, but go about it in a way that | |
| 203 embraces [r-s] and extends _the nature of science itself_, rather than | |
| 204 conquer more territory for good-old-fashioned-mechanistic Science. | |
| 205 | |
| 206 BCS: what I mean in [19] is, for example, what's altogether missed by | |
| 207 experimental results heralding the discovery of "the contemplation | |
| 208 neuron". | |
| 209 | |
| 210 BCS: tring again, scientists domesticating territories not classically | |
| 211 thought to be of science. How do we understnda this: | |
| 212 | |
| 213 1) as a broad-swath claim the Science (mechanistic theories) will do | |
| 214 justice to this wider swath (HST: A land-grab). | |
| 215 2) [HST: Expanding the understanding of what scientific explanation | |
| 216 can look like beyond mere mechanism, to non-effective relations] | |
| 217 2) [BCS] CR? _Meaning and Mechanism_, were it to exist: both | |
| 218 effective and non-effective relations. This story needs told, | |
| 219 but maybe not here, or not beyond a brief version. Or is HST | |
| 220 confusing M&M and "the Scientific worldview" [today] vs. "the new | |
| 221 expanded scientific worldview [which we are looking forward | |
| 222 to/see encouraging signs of the emergence of], including, but | |
| 223 [BCS] not only that, because also ... | |
| 224 | |
| 225 Alternatively | |
| 226 | |
| 227 If we look at [the best/right-thinking] new scientific | |
| 228 explorations of things classically thought of as the domain of | |
| 229 [r-s], we find a (number of non-mechanistic properties) One is | |
| 230 the theoretical centrality of the non-effective, the role of | |
| 231 embodiment, one is the importance of indexicality. | |
| 232 | |
| 233 or | |
| 234 | |
| 235 1) The essential role of the non-effective, in particular the | |
| 236 non-efficacy of reference; | |
| 237 2) The essential role of embodiment; | |
| 238 2a) The inexorable role of the indexical . | |
| 239 3) The surplusity of the referent (the way in which it always | |
| 240 exceeds that which the reference appears to convey) [There's a | |
| 77 | 241 lot more to be said here] |
| 76 | 242 4) [HST wonders about "the true flaw in determinism" == "the |
| 243 universe is [already] running the optimal algorithm"] | |
| 244 | |
| 77 | 245 Then the observation could be made that these properties are |
| 246 traditionally conceived as characteristic of [r-s]. [HST says: really? | |
| 247 Well, yes, at least for (3): "I know that God is greater than I | |
| 248 know God to be"] | |
| 249 | |
| 250 Farewell challenge to BCS: show me why 1, 2 and 4. | |
| 251 | |
| 252 HST: A great privilege to have had these sessions! |