Wednesday, November 19, 2008

What Pattern Emerges

It is necessary at this time to show that such a procedure evolved here in Dialogos of Eide had to be taken to be interpreted as a an acceptance and assumption of the way the world "is" according to scientific elaborations given in the interpretation of the "back ground."

For example, the weight of an object may be operationally defined in terms of the specific steps of putting an object on a weighing scale. The weight is whatever results from following the measurement procedure, which can in principle be repeated by anyone. It is intentionally not defined in terms of some intrinsic or private essence. The operational definition of weight is just the result of what happens when the defined procedure is followed. In other words, what's being defined is how to measure weight for any arbitrary object, and only incidentally the weight of a given object.

When observe and held in face of the scientific valuation and spoken to in the science world, the veritable conceptual acceptance of any model is its amalgamation into the way one would move into the world. This is a bold step, because you have accepted the way in which such a proposal has been put forward to demonstrate how one may now see the world.

Operational definitions are inherently difficult — arguably, even impossible — to apply to mental entities, because these latter are generally understood to be accessible only to the individual who experiences them and are therefore not independently verifiable. According to this line of thinking, a person's mental image of a brick cannot be operationally defined because it cannot be measured from outside that person's mood. Philosopher Daniel Dennett has argued that first-person operationalism is possible and desirable, using the anthropological version of the scientific method to bring the mind fully into the third-person realm required by science. As part of the Multiple Drafts Model of consciousness, Dennett defines a process he calls heterophenomenology, by which the mental is defined operationally in terms of the observed behavior of the subject.

Held in relevance to use of the word background it is necessary to consider the depth and potential of the human being in light of the bulk perspective assigned to that background to demonstrate that the depth and generation of the human interaction is more defined by more then just the compartmentalization assigned to human action.

Ir was necessary in my own mind to recognize the greater foliation of the response to stimuli as a governing factor in the emotive expressions of the human endeavour then just to let it r,main as a consequence without a possible course of direction, as an effect.

Heterophenomenology ("phenomenology of another not oneself"), is a term coined by Daniel Dennett to describe an explicitly third-person, scientific approach to the study of consciousness and other mental phenomena. It consists of applying the scientific method with an anthropological bend, combining the subject's self-reports with all other available evidence to determine his or her mental state. The goal is to discover how the subject sees the world him- or herself, without taking the accuracy of the subject's view for granted.

Heterophenomenology is put forth as the alternative to traditional Cartesian phenomenology, which Dennett calls "lone-wolf autophenomenology" to emphasize the fact that it accepts the subject's self-reports as being authoritative. In contrast, heterophenomenology considers the subject authoritative only about how things seem to him or her.

In other words, heterophenomenology requires us to listen to the subject and take what he or she says seriously, but to also look at everything else available to us, including the subject's bodily responses and environment, and be ready to conclude that the subject is wrong even about his or her own mind. For example, we could determine that the subject is hungry even though he or she doesn't recognize it.

The key role of heterophenomenology in Dennett's philosophy of consciousness is that it defines all that can be — or needs to be — known about the mind. To quote Dennett, "The total set of details of heterophenomenology, plus all the data we can gather about concurrent events in the brains of subjects and in the surrounding environment, comprise the total data set for a theory of human consciousness. It leaves out no objective phenomena and no subjective phenomena of consciousness."

Dennett stresses that heterophenomenology does not dismiss the first-person perspective, but rather brackets it so that it can be intersubjectively verified by empirical means, allowing it to be submitted as scientific evidence. This can be seen by how heavily heterophenomenology relies on adopting the intentional stance toward subjects.

See:Operational Definition Regressed to the Arts

See alsoAssociated posting back in 2005 for consideration.


Problem solvers have a way of getting to the heart of the issues, and unfortunately when ones engages competent minds like Peter Woit in the world? Whose sign post is,"anti-string with no explanation"? This is simple in the minds of the general public? It then becomes a rant, without a substantial basis? Why? Because he had no platform with which to refute?

So this attempt was fruitless, in wondering why strings should not be.

What I did find viable in looking for myself, is finding out where strings applicable features pervaded and what they were describing. Both bottom up and top down have to find approaches that emerge from a place that asks us to map this progress, and there is only one place that allows me to understand this operation.

The spectrum.

When you look at Glast operations this idealization of using the spectrum in cosmological discernibility, helped to clarify why the move of strings to a cosmological operation platform was necessary from a experimental and scientific understanding. Why was this move important?

It had to do with the amounts of energy needed to explore the principles of reductionism? How could we extend reductionism to a cosmological question about the origins of our beginning? There were no limitations as to the question of the energy that could be displayed for us all to wonder on that cosmological pallete, and here Relativity Ruled.

While complexity, asks us about the means of what is established in the forms, stands for us in our observations, as existing? Many people feel safe in what they can see?

I looked for comparative features. Like how ideas could emerge and as a good example of what math could issue from the minds of those whose good observation could speak about natures manifestations.

How good are the observatory minds of mathematicians? That would systematically describe for us this idealization of quantum reality and Relativity to join in a way that makes sense?

Macroscopic and microcosm perceptions joined?

You say Time? Julian Barbour wants to do away with Time? Yet his goal is the same? He calls Time a human construct? What isn't aside from everything else that we don't see? Science reveals a deeper truth?

Killing Time

Barbour posits that time is, in fact, an illusion - a measure imposed on the world by humanity. He explains this with the concept of a 'now', which he describes as a snapshot in time - a completely frozen, self-contained instant (much like a Polaroid photograph). Time is simply the measure of the space between two separate and unrelated 'nows.'

BarryTo offer that I am an engineer and a sculpture with a career of problem solving. To offer that making me understand the final solution is to achieve making it clear to anyone.

I am somewhat like a philosopher as you are, minus, the engineering, yet I am quite capable of peering past the veil that good minds construct.

In the end, what is taken with you might be the realization that of all the thought forms we have established and created. The illusion that we move through, hides a deeper truth, and we were immersed within it the whole time. Science, verified the anomalies that we saw?

How much power then could we grant the mind who escapes this realization, to find that all the thoughts that have ever existed, were weighted with the gravity that held us to earth? That the forms, revealed a deeper realization of their beginnings?

As the temperature cooled, the solidification was final and so was the idealization that manifested from the idea.

When is a pipe a pipe? Is a question about what supergravity reveals in the forms manifestation. Crystallization. What pattern emerges?

Betrayal of Images" by Rene Magritte. 1929 painting on which is written "This is not a Pipe"

Yet probabilistic in nature, how could such things arrange themselves as they have?

There is a deeper question here about the reality. If the idea is born in mind how would it not burn up, comparative to the beginning of our universe? Yet nature has supplied a good analogy of bubbles that form, rise to the surface, and this could have been information that arose from the fifth dimension? It all arose form the mind of the subconscious? It was always closer to the source. Why Ramanujan and Einsteins note taking in the subtle realms help to spur the incubation of reality to a deeper level of questions.

People might say indeed, that this departure point from the sane world of forms, is the moving further into the illusions? But if we cannot find a way to free ourselves, then surely, one will accept the consequences of there reality, as they take it with them?:)

Also have a look at the comments at "Dialogos of Eide" for consideration.

See:When is a Pipe a Pipe?

No comments: