stephen_speicher

Then RadCap's comment was appropriate in that you are saying, in effect, that our means of perceiving -- our senses -- stand in the way of some sort of direct contact with reality. I see from an earlier post that you express this explictly when you say that everything but your own mind is "filtered through our senses." But our senses unerringly report the evidence of reality; how could it be otherwise? It is the inferences we draw from that evidence that are subject to error, but not the evidence itself. Even so, why would the fact that we are not omniscient mean that we could not get things "absolutely right?" Is there really nothing that you know which is "absolutely right?"

I share your appreciation of the technical aspects of filmmaking but, nevertheless, the technical aspects remain a tool, not an end. The end result is the visual quality of what we see on the screen. The most menial of tools in the hands of a master can provide a visual quality which is far superior to that of an average filmmaker who has all the modern technology at his disposal. I tremble at the thought of what we might be seeing if the old masters -- some of which RadCap mentioned, and others -- were magically transported to our world today. For instance, one simple yet important tool is editing. The editing of a film gives it, in a sense, an underlying implicit epistemology, the means and the pacing by which the film is revealed. Computerized editing of film offers many advancements over older techniques, yet the quality of the editing -- the end result -- is more a function of the mind of the editor. The purpose and intention of the editor trumps the technical tools available. The other day I saw Tony Scott's new film Man on Fire, with Denzel Washington. I very much enjoyed the film, but the rapid-fire editing -- the continual fast-moving breaking from one scene to another -- detracted from the quality of the film. The editing pace was so fast that I hungered for some extended moments where we could dwell on whatever was happening. By contrast, there are many older films where cuts are made by hand and the film unfolds at a pace which is pleasing to the discriminating mind. Incidentally -- and, this is unconnected to the above, but was triggered by the thought of epistemology in film -- I'm curious what you think about Christopher Nolan's Memento? I think of that film as a rare explicit visual presentation of epistemology.

If you give me a reasonable definition of "computer," I can demonstrate why the brain is not the same. It need not be a formal definition; an essential characterization will do. And please, be succinct, not an essay. Two or three of defining characteristics are sufficient. Huh? It is difficult to untangle your meaning here. Are you claiming that consciousness is dependent on nondeterministic physical processes? I'll await your clarification before I comment further. In Objectivism reduction is the process of tracing back your knowledge to the perceptual data on which it is based, reversing the logical hierarchical order upon which the knowledge depends. In science -- in biology, neurobiology, neurophysisiology, etc . -- reduction is the process of tracing life back to the laws of chemistry and physics which fully describe and account for life. The problem is, most reductionists in the field do not separate out consciousness from life. But life can be reduced to biochemical processes, while conscious states are not reducible to neurochemical processes. Neural processes give rise to conscious states, but those conscious states are not composed of those neural processes; brain states and conscious states are not the same thing. That is what is meant when we say that consciousness is not reducible to the brain.

Yes, but many more parts than just two. The original Sterling Silliphant script was considered for something like a ten-part miniseries on NBC, if I recall correctly. Around the same time the wonderful twelve-part Centennial aired, and it was a very big success. A ten-part miniseries would provide the time to depict a great deal of the details of the story. A single or two-part film would, of necessity, cut out a great deal of the characters as well as many of those wonderful scenes. Strange as it may seem, if not done as a ten-part miniseries, I always thought that an animated series might be a nice way to go. Animation offers a terrific opportunity for stylization.

I think what you say is absolutely correct. However, if I understood "erandror's" point correctly, he was emphasizing the evolutionary aspect of crafting a film. Also very true. But, still, technical innovation plays an important part in the overall results which we see. Painting has been around for eons, but the evolution of pigments and their application can be traced in the artistic results of each period. Of course, better tools in the hand of an incompetent artist will not create a great work of art, but better tools in the hand of a genius is a wonderful sight to behold. I have often wondered how laptop computers and editing software would have been embraced by Miss Rand, and just how that might have affected her method of writing.

That is an excellent point, but you have to be careful not to overgeneralize about what may be more "artistically" of value in film today. The 1930s were absent of the many techniques which today have been perfected, and indeed these techniques can be of tremendous artistic value in crafting a film. But, taking, for instance, Robert Z. Leonard's Maytime and The Firefly, one would be hard-pressed to better the art direction of Cedric Gibbons, or the editing of Robert Kern. There is a montage scene in The Firefly which will rival any of the art and editing work today. Granted the style is different -- art direction and editing are directly connected to the tools of the day -- but the result is fantastic enough that style differences do not matter. At least, not for me.

Yes, and yes! Also, the acting in that film was superb. Jean Reno, Gary Oldman, and Natalie Portman gave (arguably) their best perfomances. I'm looking forward to Oldman in the upcoming Harry Potter and the Batman films.

Good find! You caught my joke.

The bat functions on the perceptual level, and in that sense one can say that the bat "experiences" reality. But the bat does not know "what it is like to be a bat." There is no "experience out there" which we can somehow pluck off an experience tree. First, "real" and "out there" are two different statements. Mental existents are quite real, but they are certainly not "out there." Second, "the way that red looks" is also real, but it too is not "out there." Color perception is the form in which we experience some aspect of external reality, namely a complex combination of wavelengths of light. The color red is not "out there."

If this "No" was meant to apply to my words, then nothing following the "No" negates what I said. I am not positive as to what question "amagi" is answering here, but I responded to the question as to why "Consciousness cannot be reduced to any specific software algorithm." That is an entirely different question from whether or not awareness and the volitional aspect of consciousness can ever be incorporated into a computer. If it ever is, it most certainly will not be in the form of a "specific software algorithm," which was the subject of the question. Consciousness is an irredeucible primary. Incidentally, I am acquainted with several researchers who were granted permission to work on the human brain of severely-diseased patients, after a dozen years of experimenting with animals. They implanted electrodes incased into very small glass cones that are hollowed out and coated with neurotropic chemicals which encourage nerve growth through the glass itself. The nerve tissues grow into the protected glass and form synapses in the motor cortex of the patient's brain. In effect they are creating an isolated piece of brain which generates its own electrical activity (there are no batteries involved). The internal brain generated signal is sent to a receiver in the patient's scalp and then transmitted to an external computer. The idea is to have the patient control a cursor on the computer directly from his brain generated signals. It is work such as this which offers a glimpse of the scientific possibilities in the future. In this regard, all philosophy can tell us is that consciousness is not reducible to the brain. If you study the neurobiochemical functioning of the brain, you will find that the brain is virtually nothing like a computer. Certain actions of consciousness are computer-like, but that is much different from the functioning of the brain. Consciousness depends on the brain for its existence, but it is an entirely different thing from physical matter and the physical determinsitic processes of the brain.

Probably the most mainstream advocate of alternate redshift theory is Irving Segal from MIT. Segal developed his Chronometric Cosmology, and has published many papers in the mainstream journals on his theory. He wrote a book called "Mathematical Cosmology" which has been used in many courses at various universities. Segal died about five years ago, but many of his students carry on his work. There is a survey paper which lists more than 20 alternative theories: Ghosh, A. (1991), "Velocity-dependent inertial induction: a possible tired-light mechanism", Apeiron 9-10, 35-44 I have read proceedings from a Redshift Controversy conference, but I do not have the reference handy. The problems with most of the "tired light" theories are mostly due to a lack of observed scattering effects. At least one person has developed a theory in which we are awash in a sea of gravitons, and that type of interaction would have neglible scattering effects. One book containing this idea is: Van Flandern, T. (1993), "Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets", North Atlantic Books, Berkeley. I believe there is a more current edition available. Please note that I am not endorsing any of these theories, nor am I catgorically rejecting redshift-as-velocity. Rather, I am pointing out that redshift is not an "observational" fact (as it is often represented) -- it is an inference-- and there is other data which conflicts with the standard view. Such discrepancies have been published in the literature for decades, and here I list just a few concerns. 1. Observations of high redshift quasars and low redshift galaxies that are clearly interacting and/or connected, yet have extremely disparate redshifts. 2. Companion galaxies that have redshifts higher than their parent galaxy. Both in the Local Group and in M81 there are eleven companions and this has been noted for all. Since the companions are orbiting, about half should have been blueshifted, but are not. 3. Higher redshift quasars have lower measured Faraday rotation than smaller redshift quasars, and the reverse should be true. 4. Galaxy clusters have been found which have as much as a four magnitude range of dispersion from the standard Hubble diagram relating redshift and brightness. 5. There is some evidence that redshifts are quantized, which is inconsistent with expected continuity of velocity. This preference for certain discrete values has been observed in a wide range. These are just some of the concerns with the traditional interpretation of redshift-as-velocity. The most notable objector to the standard view is famed astronomer Halton Arp, who has campaigned against the Big Bang theory for many years. His latest book has a lot of information that can be gleaned by the non-physicist. The reference is: Arp, Halton. (1999) "Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science", Apeiron, Canada. And, again, I am not endorsing any of these alternate theories -- all are problematic in my view -- but such alternate theories do exist.

You can also bring it up on the TEWLIP list: http://physics.prodos.org/ Actually, if you search through the TEWLIP archives, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TEWLIP/messages your question has already been answered there, probably more than once if I recall. If not by me, then perhaps by Dean Sandin, or others. The "offending person" is just one of a small group; remove one and he can be replaced with another. As I understand the moderation policy here, the prime objective is to keep this a civil place. But, with all due respect to the moderators -- who, I believe, are mostly young students -- bright as they are it is difficult for them to moderate content, and sometimes content can be formulated in such a way as to be even more offensive than personal attacks. Ideas can and should be used to illustrate and educate, but they can also be used as a weapon for obfuscation. I will say this much: Philosophy cannot prescribe the specific limit on the finite speed of transmission of any information or signal -- that is a scientific issue. And that scientific issue has been discussed several times on the TEWLIP group. Feel free to search the archives there. Indeed, feel free to search the archives there for all these issues related to nonlocality.

The problem with thought experiments which attempt to make nonsensical things real -- things which contradict fundamental axioms like identity -- is that nonsensical things cannot be made real, so often the thought experiment leads to confusion. In my opinion, I think it better to focus on making the positive things real. In the appendix of ITOE, page 149, Ayn Rand was asked about the concept "nothing," to which she, in part, responded: "That is strictly a relative concept. It pertains to the absence of some kind of concrete. The concept 'nothing' is not possible except in relation to 'something.' Therefore, to have the concept 'nothing,' you mentally specify—in parenthesis, in effect—the absence of a something, and you conceive of 'nothing' only in relation to concretes which no longer exist or which do not exist at present.... It is very important to grasp that 'nothing' cannot be a primary concept. You cannot start with it in the absence of, or prior to, the existence of some object. That is the great trouble with Existentialism, as I discuss in the book [page 60]. There is no such concept as 'nothing,' except as a relational concept denoting the absence of some things." The history of the ether is a facinating subject, and historically the ether has taken on many different forms. Unless you are interested in the details of various scientific theories which have attempted to give reality to "empty space," regardless of whether the ether consists of particles or, say, schmooballs, there must be something everywhere in the universe. The universe is a plenum; it is full, no gaps, no truly empty spaces. You have the right idea, although the technical meaning of some of these words is not the same as others. The point to stress, again, is that all of existence is something, whatever the nature of that something is.

Yes, in general I agree. I think Spielberg's AI is a particularly good example of his directing ability. E.T. is also a favorite of mine, and that earlier work shows all the seeds which either blossomed or were echoed in AI.

I hope that your inclusion of this clarification does not imply that you think invalid or nonsensical concepts, such as a square circle, to be the only criteria I employ. The essential here is identity, in any aspect of reality. If I could show that the color of swans were an inextricable aspect of their nature, such a fundamental part of their identity, of what actually makes them be a swan, then I would say that another color would be metaphysically impossible, meaning not possible in reality. In that case I could still conceive of what a differently colored swan would be like, but it would not be a swan. It would have a different identity. All metaphysical reality which is, is what it is, and it could not be other than what it is, since all physical processes are determinstic. But that does not mean we cannot talk of things which could exist in reality, even though we have no evidence that such a thing actually does exist. That is is what I mean by metaphysically possible. We have absolutely no evidence that a species with the sensory aparatus to perceive atomic structure directly, actually exists somewhere in the universe. But, that did not stop Ayn Rand from using that species to illustrate an essential point about inferences via differing forms of perception.

Because thinking is an active process guided by volitional choice, not the rote following of certain rules and procedures. You can specify, in ever increasing detail, the methods employed by conscious beings, and you can equip a device with an ever expanding base of knowledge. Such algorithms operating on data have the potential for great things -- finding relationships not previously discerned, etc. -- but the bottom line is that such algorithms simply mimic a predetermined process, lacking the essential volitional control of a real human consciousness. You have not reduced consciousness to an algorithm, but rather some specific results of a consciousness. Volition is a truly unique function of consciousness -- a primary -- not capable of further reduction than itself.

Because some are more interested in smears than ideas (I do not mean to imply that you are one) this is a subject which I will not discuss here. You said you are a member of HBL. I will be happy to address your issue if you bring it up there.

You're welcome, Matt. Dirac was an interesting guy and he deserves to be focused on more when relating historical accounts as well as discussing technical contributions to quantum mechanics. In a real sense Dirac was the father of quantum electrodynamics, in that it was some of his ideas which Feynman et al picked up on in the development of that field. I think Dirac is often given too much credit in some areas, and not enough in others.

That explains why that post disappeared. Thanks, and it was appropriate for you to remove that slur. Just to be absolutely clear: Because I choose to avoid people who want to engage me on that level, I will no longer discuss this subject, which is of great importance to me, except on a tightly moderated forum. This is not meant as a criticism of this group. This forum is an interesting place and it serves its purpose well. A serious discussion of ideas admits no latitude for those whose prime purpose is to smear rather than engage in rational argument.

I thought I was discussing ... but instead of an answer to my arguments I just received this notification email. With a response like this it looks like I was right in the first place. The only appropriate place for the level of discussion I seek, on this subject, will be a tightly moderated forum dedicated to serious discussion of science and philosophy.

In cosmology I do not have an integrated theory as I do with quantum and relativistic phenomena. Cosmology is the study of the large-scale structure and dynamics of the universe, and to some degree that study is described by general relativity. However, it has become clear that general relativity is not sufficient to account alone for the current glut of observational data. When we observe -- as was done not long ago -- a coherent structure some 600 million light years across, and some 6.5 billion light years away, and realize that its existence cannot be accounted for so early in the cosmic history of the supposed Big Bang, then we know we are in trouble. The dynamics of individual galactic structures are better understood, but even there we have the fanciful crutch of so-called dark matter and dark energy which was invented in an attempt to account for what the theory failed to do. Of course, we realize that the notion of the origin of the universe is absurd, but the first and foremost cosmological issue which needs to be unambiguously understood is that of cosmological redshift. There is nothing inherent in the nature of reality that would prohibit galaxies to be receding from each other at high speed, but the explanation of such is certainly something other than spatial expansion. There is a connection between the interpretation of redshift as the recessional speed of galaxies, and the expanding universe. Regardless of the direction we observe, the shift in the spectrum is essentially the same, so if all galaxies have this same increasing recessional speed with distance, that would imply that we -- the Earth -- were at the center of the entire cosmos, with everything spreading out from us. To counter this Earth-centered "explosion" the notion of expanding space was posited, so that the expansion would appear uniform for any observer in the universe. The analogy used is that of an inflating balloon marked with dots on its surface to represent galaxies, and as the balloon surface expands the distance between dots (galaxies) increases uniformly for all dots. Each dot (galaxy) would see expansion outward from itself. So, the recessional velocity inference of spectral shifts led to the notion of an expanding universe. For philosophers and scientists who reject such a universal expansion of space, as I do, it is difficult to accept the recessional velocity inference unless we assume that some sort of explosion caused all of this matter to recede from us, with us at the center of the universe. But it is important to distinguish between observational fact, and theory. The observational fact is that there exists certain shifts in the spectral lines as measured in the light from the galaxies. That these shifts are interpreted as velocities is an inference based upon a specific theory. There are other (lesser known) theories which interpret the observed red-shift to imply something else other than increasing velocity. Anyway, there is a great deal of theoretical work yet to be done in cosmology, and, since it is (literally) the furthest removed from out daily experience, it will probably be the last to be addressed, at least from a thoroughly proper perspective. You are most welcome. I enjoy these discussions.

First, I disagree that "there is an experience out there ..." What is "out there" is a bat, not an experience. Second, the bat is not unknowable. The experience of actually being a bat is un-experiencable (if such a word exists). Personally, I have no problem with that. I also will never directly experience what it is like to be a rock, but I stumble along in life anyway.

Don, you have now stated that a non-white swan could exist, and that there is no evidence that one exists now. This is just what I have been saying. We do not seem to be disagreeing on the facts, but rather on each other's interpretation of "metaphysically possible" and "potential." I already addressed that point, so I'll let the subject be.

Fourth question for "ragnarhedin": I asked: "ragnarhedin" answered: Fine, then answer for yourself. You say (above) that Harriman's stated view of nonlocality does not violate the axioms. I have argued that they do. How do you answer my arguments?

Third question for "ragnarhedin": I asked: "ragnarhedin" answered: Then why bring up the article at all? The article defended nonlocality on the basis of the DDC experiments. The "single entity" example was meant to show that nonlocality is consistent with the DDC experiments.