Brett:

Thanks -- all quite interesting.  Your "Representational Qualia  
Theory" link, led me to the empty "Veil of Perception" link, which led  
me to the "Direct and Indirect Realism" Wiki page, which begins with  
this (under "History") --

"Aristotle was the first to provide a description of direct realism.   
In 'On the Soul' he describes how a see-er is informed of the *object  
itself* by way of the *hylomorphic form* carried over the intervening  
material continuum with which the eye is impressed."

Okay.  This then leads to a footnote that says this --

"The distinction between direct and indirect realism about perception  
has an interesting history.  There was a time when perception was  
understood to be about the things themselves, not of our ideas of  
things.  This is what we find in Aristotle and Aquinas, who maintain  
that the mind or understanding grasps the form of the material object  
without the matter.  What we perceive directly, on this view, are  
material objects.  This changed in the seventeenth century with  
Descartes and Locke, who can be read as saying that primary objects of  
perception are not things external to the mind but sense-data . . . "

Fascinating.  Last summer, my Center conducted a 13-week seminar on  
"On the Soul" and it seems that what is being said here confuses many  
of the matters involved.  My guess is that those quoted don't really  
understand Aristotle's "grammar" very well. I was wondering, since  
you've spent the last 10 years working on this, if anyone has tried to  
sort this out at that level?

In particular --

1) What is Aristotle's "hylomorphic form"?  Does anyone try to  
describe that in "metaphysical" detail?

2) If it is true, according to Aristotle, that this *form* is what is  
perceived, then how does this become "direct," when it is the "form"  
and not the "matter" that is perceived?  No, they are not the same.   
One is "hylo" and the other is "morph."

3) Don't "Descartes and Locke," in this reading, actually just  
substitute "sense-data" (i.e. today's "qualia") for those "hylomorphic  
forms"?  What did they have against Aristotle?  Did they know what  
they were doing and why did they do that?

Furthermore --

1) All this is a fine expression of the "sensibility" topic I have  
introduced.  Rather than being a conflict to be resolved via  
"argument," what we have are different *structural* approaches to the  
world.  No amount of argument will resolve that.

2) We deal with this shift in sensibility all the time.  In  
"structural" terms, Aristotle/Aquinas are what we call SCRIBAL.   
Descartes and Locke are what we call PRINT.  And the "modern  
philosophers" looking at all this are what we call ELECTRIC.   
Different structures: different sensibilities.

3) Let's put this in terms of this list.  For the purpose of  
illustrating the point, let's say that John Torday is PRINT, Gregg  
Henriques is ELECTRIC and that I am DIGITAL -- in terms of our  
structural "sensibilities."  Can we ever "agree"?

4) Can the Canonizer sort all this out?  Can it uncover the  
*structure* of the presumptions that various people are bringing to  
the discussion or does it presume that a) there are no differences or  
b) these differences don't matter?

As you might know, the "classical trivium" (which, later morphed into  
the "Three R's) is the basis of education in the West.  It consists of  
Rhetoric, Grammar and Dialectics.  Each of these plays a different  
role, but let's briefly explore the topics of Grammar and Dialectics.

"Grammar" is that *structure* which we presume to describe the world.   
Over time, it doesn't stay the same, so, as a result, as we shift from  
one structural understanding to another -- from one grammar to another  
-- and, accordingly, our "sensibilities" shift as well.

Many have suggested that this is the origin of the "premises" on which  
we will later construct "dialectical" arguments -- making Grammar the  
foundation of Dialectics, in terms of the Trivium.  Yes, Marshall  
McLuhan wrote his 1943 Cambridge PhD on all this.

Could it be that the difficulties you note -- including the "qualia"  
shouting-matches &c -- are actually differences in *grammar* which  
cannot be resolved by "dialectics"?  So where does the Canonized fit in?

Mark

Quoting Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]>:

> Hi Mark,
>
> You seem to not know much about how canonizer works, what it is, or what it
> has already accomplished.
>
> You indicated how “Crowd Sourcing” is not the source to “wisdom” or
> “understanding” and that the crowd is “clueless”.  I agree with you, that
> currently the crowd is quite clueless.  The only reason we want to measure
> this cluelessness, using the default popular consensus canonizer algorithm,
> is so we can compare this to the “expert consensus” as measured by expert
> canonizer algorithms.  What you can measure, will improve.  This allows the
> experts to better find out what the popular consensus is.  Knowing where
> the crowd is mistaken and why, they can then better form the expert
> consensus in a way that the crowd can better keep up.  One of many ways
> this canonization process amplifies the wisdom of the previously,
> clueless.  For example, global warming experts will finally be able to know
> what the crowd believes, and why.  And they will be able to measure which
> arguments better convince the crowd…  Again, amplifying the wisdom of the
> crowd.
>
> Before Canonizer.com existed, many of the notes groups and forums  I
> participated in, even the philosophy ones, would try to shame people into
> not bringing up the topic of “qualia”, knowing that this would just lead to
> a shouting match, where no matter what you referenced from what was coming
> out of the Ivory Tower and Peer reviewed journals, someone else would throw
> an equally ivory towers reference claiming it was “fake news”.  The same
> old yelling match, and reference throwing at each other never made any
> progress, and ultimately one side or the other would accuse the other of
> being Nazis.  The stuff being published in peer reviewed journals is no
> different.  This fear and loathing everyone has of even bring up the topic
> of qualia, as a result of all this, is the biggest reason the crowd is so
> clueless.  Even many neural experimentalist fear bringing up the word
> qualia.  If they try to consult the peer review journals on this, it is all
> junk, so they just give up after a few years.  Jack Galant is a very good
> example of exactly this.
>
> Now, when you go into forums, where people know what canonizer.com is,
> everything has changed dramatically.  Talking about qualia is now fun.
> Anyone that brings up qualia, now, is quickly met with people pointing to
> links, describing the state of the art of emerging expert consensus camps
> held by the participants in the forums.  Instead of all the repeated old
> arguments, on the occasion someone does bring a new argument or scientific
> results to the conversation that is not yet canonized, you canonize that
> new argument.  You can measure the quality of such arguments and evidence
> by how many people they convert.  We are already seeing this.  Again, that
> which you measure, improves the wisdom of the crowd.  These kinds of
> conversations, in forums, are now very fun, and you see things start to
> progress at an extraordinary rate, instead of being stuck on the same old
> stupid arguments, over and over again.  We even had a high school student
> come to canonizer.com, clearly initially, quite naive about many of the
> good arguments and theories.  Within a few months, since he was able to
> ignore all the old stuff by all the old experts taught in college classes,
> which most experts now agree have been falsified, he was competing with
> PhDs that had been working and publishing in the field for years with his
> contributions.
>
> There are also LOTS of people that have what they believe to be the
> “Solution” to the hard problem, which they can’t get published, for lots of
> various reasons, including the fact that many of the ideas look really
> crazy, and have nothing to do with the real “hard problem”.  These kinds of
> people flock to canonizer.com, because it is finally a place where they
> can, not just publish their work they can canonize it, and start finding
> other people that agree with them, building consensus around their best
> ideas, and abandoning the bad ones.
>
> Now that canonizer has been around, and we’ve been doing the consciousness
> consensus project for more than 10 years we’ve made a real breakthrough.
> The “Representational Qualia Theory
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DRepresentational-2DQualia_6-3F&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=6C0_mIxyrkfL1lP2qpsJwkrCQcZIPtoU5JEzuyMJ3G8&s=0RNGuwEW1JQDWa-AcIzsas_lm9KtG-on5irO0fJ8rwA&e=>”, which  
> has
> almost unanimous expert consensus, is not only proving how much consensus
> is possible in this field, it is the real solution to bridging the
> explanatory gap, describing a real way to approach the qualitative nature
> of consciousness scientifically.
>
> The Ivory tower and peer reviewed journal industry has been struggling with
> this so called “hard problem’, for hundreds of years. About all they’ve
> given anyone, is that there is no consensus on anything.  Only the bad
> arguments are the ones that get so often bleated, by the polarized herding
> crowd.  Now, with Canonizer, no more.
>
> You also said: “You don't get to redefine "canon."  The Church owns the
> word.”
>
> Which is also incorrect.  The domain name “canonizer.com” is owned by
> Canonizer.com LLC, and nobody could get a copyright on a word like that.
> We're using it quite successfully already.
>
> Brent

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1