I also see only some emails. Don't know why. Yes, a subjective experience is
always linked to a specific subject. I would say we can divide subjective
experience intoa) a physical part that depends on molecular biology and genes:
receptors for pain and pleasure, for red, green and blue colors or sweet,
salty, sour and bitter taste. this part is irreducible and depends on our
speciesb) a cultural part that defines subjective meaning (in China for example
the colors white and red have different meaning than in Europe)c) a personal
part that depends on the history of a personThe mathematics used in the proofs
describes more the personal part c) and perhaps part b) if we model the history
of whole countries.-J.
-------- Original message --------From: Santafe <[email protected]> Date:
10/5/26 8:08 PM (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
Group <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A field theory of understanding
For whatever reason, Jochen’s posts don’t forward to me, so I only see them in
the later context of somebody else’s replies. In this case EricC’s, on Nick’s.
I will clip to the focal sentence (acknowledging all that was clipped):
> Claude was not happy about the theorem proofs that Gemini created.
> And Jon also mentioned that they are not waterproof. So I asked Claude
> and Gemini if they could write a new proof. They could. I asked them
> if we could use gauge theory to explain subjective experience - gauge
> invariance to describe objectivity, and symmetry breaking for
> subjectivity. I think there was a time when I had enthusiasm for using these
> mathematical-physics metaphors. Something has apparently happened. I
> probably said, a while ago (so if you feel like it, forgive the repetition),
> that since I don’t know what philosophers mean by objective and subjective, I
> could take the more defensive posture of being a linguistic semanticist,
> which to me seems like a more pragmatist standing-point anyway, leaving many
> further mistakes for the future rather than making them all at once.I could
> take “objective” and “subjective” to be two speech registers, in an ordinary
> lexical/grammatical-semantics sense. A sentence in an “objective” register
> is one that I can parse to a meaning (in the everyday sense; not in some
> formal logic that everyday speech doesn’t use and that would need to be
> invented) without needing as input who said it. A sentence in a “subjective”
> register is one that cannot be parsed to a meaning without reference to some
> speaker (in whatever representation; maybe more or less explicit), which must
> thus be supplied._Why_ we use those registers, why we have been handed them
> down from past speakers innumerable, and how our experienced lives reward or
> discourage the adoption of such registers, looks to me like a question that
> can to some degree (as good a degree as anything in semantics) be separated
> or factored from the classification of the locutions.Eric
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ...
--- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
