Some notes on "writings on physics and philosophy" by Wolfgang Pauli
Perceptual experience must be mediated through at least four "filters": the brain/neurons, our perception or consciousness of the neurological response, the perception of the object, and the actual object itself. We could also add additional "filters": time for instance. Given the complexity of this experience, it is not surprising that it is very difficult to clearly communicate with someone else, and it is surprising just how well it works. Suggests there must be adaptations in the brain that to some extent "help".
In "understanding" others (and ourself?) we are acting on probabilities. Does the probability of an accurate understanding increase with an increase in "knowledge" and "experience"? What could make the probability increase? Is the probability of "understanding" always relatively low given how unique and unpredictable humans are?
If we think of early humans and developing communication and sharing in order to increase survival, their communication and sharing had to depend at least partially on their developing a good probability matrix so they could be right more than wrong in "understanding". Does empathy help strengthen our probability matrix?
Phenomenon and physical reality chapter was very thought provoking.
Emendation: an alteration designed to correct
Pauli argues that those in the "west", Occidentals, to use his language have two fundamental attitudes that they are grappling with: the rational/critical and themystical/irrational. The first seeks to understand, the second to look "for the redeeming experience of oneness", p. 139. I think he means the ultimate reality or god as the experience of oneness (might we say the meaning o the universe?). From his perspective, this is a given dialectic but we can accept these as complimentary and what he means is that we can continue observing and measuring the universe while recognizing how our mystical side limits us. This could be translated to his insistence throughout the book that the subjective is always interfering. The part that can't be measured or observed or removed. What many try to label the soul or the transcendental and some call the god delusion. It's interesting to view it this way because subjectivity does seem as much a reality as the measurable universe even though we can't empirically know it (neuroscience though is trying hard to!).
In "understanding" others (and ourself?) we are acting on probabilities. Does the probability of an accurate understanding increase with an increase in "knowledge" and "experience"? What could make the probability increase? Is the probability of "understanding" always relatively low given how unique and unpredictable humans are?
If we think of early humans and developing communication and sharing in order to increase survival, their communication and sharing had to depend at least partially on their developing a good probability matrix so they could be right more than wrong in "understanding". Does empathy help strengthen our probability matrix?
Phenomenon and physical reality chapter was very thought provoking.
Emendation: an alteration designed to correct
Pauli argues that those in the "west", Occidentals, to use his language have two fundamental attitudes that they are grappling with: the rational/critical and themystical/irrational. The first seeks to understand, the second to look "for the redeeming experience of oneness", p. 139. I think he means the ultimate reality or god as the experience of oneness (might we say the meaning o the universe?). From his perspective, this is a given dialectic but we can accept these as complimentary and what he means is that we can continue observing and measuring the universe while recognizing how our mystical side limits us. This could be translated to his insistence throughout the book that the subjective is always interfering. The part that can't be measured or observed or removed. What many try to label the soul or the transcendental and some call the god delusion. It's interesting to view it this way because subjectivity does seem as much a reality as the measurable universe even though we can't empirically know it (neuroscience though is trying hard to!).
Comments
Post a Comment