Replies

This is made clear by your discussions of Bohr and Einstein's views -- they're not talking about "evidence" per se, nor the interpretation of it; rather, they're talking about the overarching reality within which that activity takes place. And yet there's no serious doubt that both gentlemen were engaged in "science" when they were wrangling at a philosophical level with the issues raised by quantum mechanics. At that level, the "science" and "philosophy" (and also religion) are essentially inseparable -- to attempt to separate them into separate and exclusive forms of cognition is not just unnecessary, it's positively harmful to our attempts to come to grips with "reality."

Beautifully said, r9etb! Perhaps needless to say, I so agree. (I couldn't resist adding the bolds. )

And granted, "there are some significant similarities in the sense of control systems and human cognition," as you describe. But you aren't willing to push the analogy too far, for you recognize there are significant differences as well....

For as you wrote:

...humans don't exist merely within a cyclic control loop; we also understand ourselves to be operating within a continuum that includes both past and future. Even if the aforementioned lag between sensing and processing imposes a short period of uncertainty about "now," our awareness of context allows us to operate as if that lag did not exist. And despite the lag between "actual" and "perceived" now, I think there's no serious doubt that an objective "now" actually exists.

If humans indeed lived "merely" within a cyclic control loop, then there would be no human freedom and, with no freedom, no human creativity. For purpose-built controllers "merely" execute their programs (as written for them by human beings). Controllers have no "freedom" to do anything else. I gather researchers in artificial intelligence are aware of this constraint and are trying to figure out how to get around it. Probably they have a way to go here, assuming what they seek is even possible at all.

I thought this was so insightful:

My thoughts -- and those of most folks, probably -- tend to range very far from our moment-to-moment activities, a lot of the time. And I think that stands as evidence that we humans have a (very limited) ability to take a "God's-eye view" of reality. And that is the proper context in which to address the slippery question of "now."

Yes; but very limited. For the "God's eye view" is from eternity, while our view is bound by our spatiotemporal position and "the arrow of [linear] time." To imagine what such a view might be like, it would be to see all past, present, and future, of all that there is, ever was, or ever will be, all "at once," in what we humans would call an "instant" of time. We cannot even begin to imagine what such a view would be like!

Anyhoot, it seems the "God's eye view" would be of an eternal Present, an eternal Now. Since my faith teaches that man is made in the "image" (or likeness, reflection) of God, on that basis we may believe that man possesses something like the capacity to experience this Eternal Now, albeit in some far "weaker" fashion. And though I here drag the "squishy matter" (scientifically speaking) of the soul back into the discussion, If the human mind can experience anything like an Eternal Now, the soul would likely be the "sensorium" of it....

So here I'm mixing up science and religion! But I think this is permissible, provided we clearly understand in which "baileywick" we are working/thinking at the time, and properly disclose such details to the reader. Which I have just done. :^)

For it seems we are agreed, r9etb, that science, philosophy, and religion ought not to be separated, regarded as "hostile" to one another — not if we want to gain the biggest, most comprehensive view of Reality that can be obtained by the human mind.

I find your essay/posts so delightful to read and think about, r9etb. Thank you so very much for your wonderful contributions to this thread!

"If humans indeed lived "merely" within a cyclic control loop, then there would be no human freedom and, with no freedom, no human creativity."

Your operative word there, as I perceive it, is "merely". Also, since I have experience in both automated process control and in software development, I view the "human control loop" as being most akin to the software construct of an "event loop". In an event loop, the program cycles at maximum speed through a loop where it is waiting for an "interrupt" or "event" signal. A good example of an "event" is a mouse click, which then puts the program into a series of "CASE" statements that identify where the mouse coordinates were when the click occurred. For example: "mouse click in scroll bar" or "mouse click on button #..."

That sort of control loop is not deterministic, but reactionary. It is the epitome of free-will decision-making. (We can decide not to react to that car approaching us at high speed on a cross street - although we usually choose avoidance action, instead...)

I tend to see us as having such an "event loop" "running" continuously, but I also appreciate that we can be predictive of the future: ("Will that car pass through the intersection before I get there?")

Ask anyone who has designed control systems IF he can design one to handle all the events and decisions we are capable of making -- just on a drive to the grocery store. He will probably acknowledge that the human eye-brain-body -- as designed by our Creator -- is far more capable and flexible than any system he could design...

I just watched a video of a man holding a shotgun in his right hand and eight clay pigeon targets in his left. He then proceeded to toss the targets into the air -- and then break them all with eight individual shots (no "doubles") before they reached the ground! We are, indeed, "fearfully and wonderfully made"!!!