Brent_Allsop replied 16 years ago (Nov 13th 2007, 1:28:38 am)
"this is starting to look like a mailing list debate. Is this appropriate for the Canonizer, in the interest of hammering out a camp statement or statements?"
From my POV, I think this is very appropriate. That is why we didn't use a simple talk or "discussion" page like wikipedia uses for its articles. This kind of extensive debate can happen here, in another notes group, or for that matter, in the vestibule of a church with your bishop. But to me, the important thing is that once you have had such a debate, you summarize and concisely state what was covered after it is all over. And the POV camp statements are the place for this. If it ends up that you agree, you will both be in the same camp, if it ends up that you disagree, you will both enter and support two sibling competing camps. And the next time the issue comes up when someone new comes on the set, everyone can quickly get up to speed and make some real progress.
Once you have a concise summary, and a repository for such, this can give all debates some formal structure, memory, and a real goal to focus on - i.e. the final concise statements of belief. A similar thing occurs with peer review journals, but that is just way to hard, slow, and ivory tower based to be able to make any quick progress on things as new scientific data is streaming at us so fast. And the worst part, it is impossible to get any idea of how many people are in any particular camp, or want things a certain way. How do you know if you are reading just another crappy peer reviewed article in some Psyche journal, or one that everyone agrees could dramatically change the thinking on all this? Without such polling or Canonizing ability we all end up using our own terminology our own way which ends up being a huge mess for everyone and no one can communicate.
For example, it seems to me that Jo is using some terminology here that I think is very misleading and even mistaken for me and my world, and this is why I couldn't initially understand what he was saying.
Jo had to finally say:
"Dynamic accounts of space and time are the applications of rules that predict observations, such as: Newton's F=ma or s=vt or Schrodinger's equation. Nothing in these accounts *has* an appearance; but their function is to *predict* appearances. The distinction is simple, crucial, but rarely understood."
For me, a better term than "Dynamic accounts" would just be "abstracted model". And the usage of "appearance" is just completely confusing to me because appearance could involve the entire complex and controversial perception process. At first I'm thinking, Is he talking about how our knowledge in our brain of something we are apprehending is? Or maybe the way the surface of something reflects 700 nm light at the other end of the perception process?" After Jo further explained things, I finally translated this into what I consider a much better way to say it which is that an appearance is just a physical insanitation or real example of what the model or abstracted theory represents (regardless of how accurate the particular abstract model is.).
Jo, have I successfully translated your terminology into mine? Or am I still missing something important?
Of course, I likely use my terminology because of my computer background which always uses terms like abstract models and instantiations of such. While Jo is obviously very educated in the history of all this and many other things, which I am completely ignorant of. So in his school of thought, this is surely the better language to use.
But then the question is, which one is the best for the most people? And if we could easily determine (canonize if you will) this we could finally communicate much more effectively and quickly right? If 80% of the people think Jo's way of saying this is better, then I'd sure like to know this, so I could better communicate to this crowd, and know what they are talking about the first time around. But of course, in my POV, I don't believe this to be the case.
So, if my translations of what Jo is saying here is sufficient, and I'm not missing something important, would it make sense to create another topic on just this terminology to find out for sure which terminology most people like best when talking about "Dynamic Accounts" vs "Appearance"? If I'm by far in the minority, I'll repent and change as soon as I can know such.
I'll get started on some verbiage on such a topic to try to get this particular terminology Canonized.