The Double-Slit Experiment Of Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [19]

Hawking (1988: 58-9):

Interference can also occur for particles, because of the duality introduced by quantum mechanics. A famous example is the so-called two-slit experiment (Fig. 4.2). Consider a partition with two narrow parallel slits in it. On one side of the partition one places a source of light of a particular colour (that is, of a particular wavelength). Most of the light will hit the partition, but a small amount will go through the slits. Now suppose one places a screen on the far side of the partition from the light. Any point on the screen will receive waves from the two slits. However, in general, the distance the light has to travel from the source to the screen via the two slits will be different. This will mean that the waves from the slits will not be in phase with each other when they arrive at the screen: in some places the waves will cancel each other out, and in others they will reinforce each other. The result is a characteristic pattern of light and dark fringes.

 

The remarkable thing is that one gets exactly the same kind of fringes if one replaces the source of light by a source of particles such as electrons with a definite speed (this means that the corresponding waves have a definite length). It seems the more peculiar because if one only has one slit, one does not get any fringes, just a uniform distribution of electrons across the screen. One might therefore think that opening another slit would just increase the number of electrons hitting each point of the screen, but, because of interference, it actually decreases it in some places. If electrons are sent through the slits one at a time, one would expect each to pass through one slit or the other, and so behave just as if the slit it passed through were the only one there—giving a uniform distribution on the screen. In reality, however, even when the electrons are sent one at a time, the fringes still appear. Each electron, therefore, must be passing through both slits at the same time!

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, wave-particle duality is the complementarity of potential and instance.  On this view, it is particles, not waves, that pass through the slits.

Importantly, if only one particle is emitted in the double-slit experiment, there is no interference pattern recorded on the detector screen. The interference patterns only begin to appear as more and more particles are detected. This means that the interference cannot be a property of each single instance. And this means that each detected particle only goes through one slit or the other, not both.

Instead, the "interference" is a property of the quantum system as potential, as described by the wave function, with the different frequencies of particle impacts instantiating the different probabilities of the quantum system potential.

Wave-Particle Duality Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [9]

Hawking (1988: 56):

Although light is made up of waves, Planck’s quantum hypothesis tells us that in some ways it behaves as if it were composed of particles: it can be emitted or absorbed only in packets, or quanta. Equally, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle implies that particles behave in some respects like waves: they do not have a definite position but are “smeared out” with a certain probability distribution. The theory of quantum mechanics is based on an entirely new type of mathematics that no longer describes the real world in terms of particles and waves; it is only the observations of the world that may be described in those terms.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, particles do have a definite position, as demonstrated when an observation is made.  They are not "smeared out" because the probability distribution quantifies their potential positions, not their actual (instantial) positions.

The mathematics of quantum mechanics does describe the "real world" in terms of particles and waves, but with the following qualifications:

1. the "real world" is the identity relation of perceptual and linguistic meaning, construed of experience of the non-semiotic domain;
2. the mathematics of waves quantifies quantum systems as potential; and
3. the mathematics of particles quantifies instances of quantum potential.

The "Unpredictability Or Randomness" Of Quantum Mechanics Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Hawking (1988: 55-6):

In general, quantum mechanics does not predict a single definite result for an observation. Instead, it predicts a number of different possible outcomes and tells us how likely each of these is. That is to say, if one made the same measurement on a large number of similar systems, each of which started off in the same way, one would find that the result of the measurement would be A in a certain number of cases, B in a different number, and so on. One could predict the approximate number of times that the result would be A or B, but one could not predict the specific result of an individual measurement. Quantum mechanics therefore introduces an unavoidable element of unpredictability or randomness into science.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the possible outcomes predicted by (the wave function of) quantum mechanics constitute the potential meanings of a given system that can be construed of experience, and the likelihood of each outcome constitutes the quantification of such potential as probability.  The specific results of individual measurements are instances of that potential, whose frequencies are in line with the probabilities of the system potential.

What this actually demonstrates is that the construal experience of the non-semiotic domain as meaning, by consciousness, is itself probabilistic.

The Beginning Of Time Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Hawking (1988: 46):

As far as we are concerned, events before the big bang can have no consequences, so they should not form part of a scientific model of the universe. We should therefore cut them out of the model and say that time had a beginning at the big bang.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, time is construed in physics as the dimension along which processes unfold.  As such, it is not time that begins with the Big Bang, but the processes used to measure time.

Einstein's Gravity And "Anti-Gravity" Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Hawking (1988: 40):

Yet so strong was the belief in a static universe that it persisted into the early twentieth century. Even Einstein, when he formulated the general theory of relativity in 1915, was so sure that the universe had to be static that he modified his theory to make this possible, introducing a so-called cosmological constant into his equations. Einstein introduced a new “antigravity” force, which, unlike other forces, did not come from any particular source but was built into the very fabric of space-time. He claimed that space-time had an inbuilt tendency to expand, and this could be made to balance exactly the attraction of all the matter in the universe, so that a static universe would result.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, gravity corresponds to the contraction of space intervals due to the presence of matter, and so "antigravity" corresponds to the expansion of space intervals due to the absence of matter.  On this basis, the expansion of the universe confirms that space does have "an inbuilt tendency to expand", just as Einstein claimed.

However, contrariwise, gravity corresponds to the expansion of time intervals due to the presence of matter — the time between clock ticks expands — and so "antigravity" corresponds to the contraction of time intervals due to the absence of matter.  On this basis, the expansion of the universe confirms that time has "an inbuilt tendency to contract", which corresponds to processes having a tendency to to unfold more quickly.

The Curvature Of Space-Time Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [2]

Hawking (1988: 33):

Before 1915, space and time were thought of as a fixed arena in which events took place, but which was not affected by what happened in it. This was true even of the special theory of relativity. Bodies moved, forces attracted and repelled, but time and space simply continued, unaffected. It was natural to think that space and time went on forever. 

The situation, however, is quite different in the general theory of relativity. Space and time are now dynamic quantities: when a body moves, or a force acts, it affects the curvature of space and time — and in turn the structure of space-time affects the way in which bodies move and forces act. Space and time not only affect but also are affected by everything that happens in the universe. Just as one cannot talk about events in the universe without the notions of space and time, so in general relativity it became meaningless to talk about space and time outside the limits of the universe.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, as previously argued, the curvature of space-time is the curvature of the geodesic trajectory of a body through space whose intervals have been relatively contracted — during which, time intervals are relatively expanded — by the presence of another body.

The Notion Of Time "Running Slower" Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [Amended]

Hawking (1988: 32-3):

Another prediction of general relativity is that time should appear to run slower near a massive body like the earth. This is because there is a relation between the energy of light and its frequency (that is, the number of waves of light per second): the greater the energy, the higher the frequency. As light travels upward in the earth’s gravitational field, it loses energy, and so its frequency goes down. (This means that the length of time between one wave crest and the next goes up.) To someone high up, it would appear that everything down below was taking longer to happen. This prediction was tested in 1962, using a pair of very accurate clocks mounted at the top and bottom of a water tower. The clock at the bottom, which was nearer the earth, was found to run slower, in exact agreement with general relativity.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, it is not time that runs slower, but the ticking of a clock that measures intervals of time.  A longer time interval between ticks constitutes an expansion of time intervals.  This means that the presence of matter causes a relative contraction of space intervals but a corresponding relative expansion of time intervals.

As light travels upward in the earth's gravitational field, it is moving from relatively contracted space intervals to relatively expanded space intervals. This means that the spatial interval between wave crests of light is gradually lengthened, with a corresponding lowering of frequency (which is inversely proportional to wavelength).*

By the same token, as light travels upward in the earth's gravitational field, it is moving from relatively expanded time intervals to relatively contracted time intervals.  This means that the light is travelling from where processes unfold relatively more slowly to where processes unfold relatively more quickly.

* Because instances of light are particles, and waves are measures of their probability, the wavelength of light is the distance between equiprobable locations of photons.

The Curvature Of Space-Time Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [1]

Hawking (1988: 29):

Einstein made the revolutionary suggestion that gravity is not a force like other forces, but is a consequence of the fact that space-time is not flat, as had been previously assumed: it is curved, or “warped,” by the distribution of mass and energy in it. Bodies like the earth are not made to move on curved orbits by a force called gravity; instead, they follow the nearest thing to a straight path in a curved space, which is called a geodesic. A geodesic is the shortest (or longest) path between two nearby points.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the presence of matter and energy contracts the intervals of the spatial dimensions — relative to their intervals in the absence of matter and energy — and it is the geodesic trajectory of a body moving through relatively contracted space intervals that is curved. Time, on the other hand, is the measure of the unfolding of the process, and, like space, its intervals are either expanded or contracted. (As will be seen in the next post, the presence of matter and energy expands the intervals of time.)

Paths Through Space-Time Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Hawking (1988: 24-5):

For example, in Fig. 2.2 time is measured upward in years and the distance along the line from the sun to Alpha Centauri is measured horizontally in miles. The paths of the sun and of Alpha Centauri through space-time are shown as the vertical lines on the left and right of the diagram. A ray of light from the sun follows the diagonal line, and takes four years to get from the sun to Alpha Centauri.

 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the horizontal axis measures spatial distance, whereas the vertical axis measures the duration of processes. Thus the horizontal extent of the diagonal line represents the spatial distance travelled by photons, whereas the vertical extent of the diagonal line represents the duration of the process of travelling. The notion of a 'path' through time misrepresents the duration of a process as the movement of particles.

Einstein's Relative Time Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Hawking (1988: 21):

An equally remarkable consequence of relativity is the way it has revolutionised our ideas of space and time. In Newton’s theory, if a pulse of light is sent from one place to another, different observers would agree on the time that the journey took (since time is absolute), but will not always agree on how far the light travelled (since space is not absolute). Since the speed of the light is just the distance it has travelled divided by the time it has taken, different observers would measure different speeds for the light. 

In relativity, on the other hand, all observers must agree on how fast light travels. They still, however, do not agree on the distance the light has travelled, so they must therefore now also disagree over the time it has taken. (The time taken is the distance the light has travelled – which the observers do not agree on – divided by the light’s speed – which they do agree on.) In other words, the theory of relativity put an end to the idea of absolute time! It appeared that each observer must have his own measure of time, as recorded by a clock carried with him, and that identical clocks carried by different observers would not necessarily agree.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, time is a construal of experience of the non-semiotic domain as meaning: a circumstance of the unfolding of processes.  The reconstrual of time as a dimension, in physics, means that it is the dimension along which the unfolding of processes is measured.

Relatively different measures of time arise from relatively different intervals of time between each tick of a clock. That is, a relatively slower clock has a relatively longer interval between each tick, and thus measures a relative expansion of the intervals of the time dimension, whereas a relatively faster clock has a relatively shorter interval between each tick, and thus measures a relative contraction of the intervals of the time dimension.

Berkeley's Subjective/Empirical Idealism Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Hawking (1988: 18):

Newton was very worried by this lack of absolute position, or absolute space, as it was called, because it did not accord with his idea of an absolute God. In fact, he refused to accept lack of absolute space, even though it was implied by his laws. He was severely criticised for this irrational belief by many people, most notably by Bishop Berkeley, a philosopher who believed that all material objects and space and time are an illusion. When the famous Dr. Johnson was told of Berkeley’s opinion, he cried, “I refute it thus!” and stubbed his toe on a large stone.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, George Berkeley did not believe that "material objects and space and time are an illusion", but that material objects only exist as ideas in the minds of perceivers, and this does not logically entail that they are illusions.  Moreover, Samuel Johnson's stubbing of his toe on a large stone was no refutation of Berkeley's claim, since seeing and feeling the stone are both perceptions in Berkeley's terms. 

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, material objects are construals of experience of the non-semiotic domain as the material-relational domain of meaning by the processes of the mental-verbal domain of meaning (consciousness).  Such meanings entail a relation of identity between perceptual and linguistic systems such that perceptual tokens realise linguistic values.

(Misinterpretations Of) The Wave Function Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Quantum mechanics is the basic framework of modern subatomic physics. It has successfully withstood almost a century of tests, including French physicist Alain Aspect’s experiments confirming entanglement, or action at a distance between certain types of quantum phenomena. In quantum mechanics, the world unfolds through a combination of two basic ingredients. One is a smooth, fully deterministic wave function: a mathematical expression that conveys information about a particle in the form of numerous possibilities for its location and characteristics. The second is something that realises one of those possibilities and eliminates all the others. Opinions differ about how that happens, but it might be caused by observation of the wave function or by the wave function encountering some part of the classical world. 

Many physicists accept this picture at face value in a conceptual kludge known as the Copenhagen interpretation, authored by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg in the 1920s. But the Copenhagen approach is difficult to swallow for several reasons. Among them is the fact that the wave function is unobservable, the predictions are probabilistic and what makes the function collapse is mysterious. 

What are we to make of that collapsing wave? The equations work, but what the wave function ‘is’ is the key source of contention in interpreting quantum mechanics.

One option, the ‘hidden variables’ approach championed by Albert Einstein and David Bohm, among others, basically states that the wave function is just a temporary fix and that physicists will eventually replace it. Another tack, named quantum Bayesianism, or QBism, by Christopher Fuchs, regards the wave function as essentially subjective. Thus it is merely a guide to what we should believe about the outcome of measurements, rather than a name for a real feature of the subatomic world. Late in his life, Heisenberg proposed that we have to change our notion of reality itself. Reaching back to a concept developed by Aristotle — ‘potency’, as in an acorn’s potential to become an oak tree, given the right context — he suggested that the wave function represents an “intermediate” level of reality.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory:

1. quantum entanglement is not "action at a distance" but the construal, by consciousness, of the non-semiotic domain as meaning; specifically as mutually dependent instances of the same system of quantum potential.  See previous posts here.
2. the notion that the "world unfolds through a combination of two ingredients" confuses the territory (world) with the map of the territory (Quantum Theory).  The world is a construal of experience as meaning (phenomena); Quantum Theory is a reconstrual of (first-order) meaning as (second-order) theoretical meaning (metaphenomena).
3. the wave function represents a quantum system as meaning potential, and the "elimination of all but one possibility" is an instantiation of that potential, which happens when, through observation, consciousness construes experience of the non-semiotic domain as meaning.
4. the notion that wave function can be observed confuses the map (the wave function) with the territory (observable phenomena); see 2.
5. the notion that wave function can encounter "some part of the classical world" confuses the map (the wave function and a classical description of the world) with the territory (observable phenomena); see 2.
6. the unobservability of theoretical meaning potential (the wave function) is thus not an argument against the Copenhagen Interpretation, nor is the fact that such potential, like all potential, is probabilistic.
7. the "mysteriousness" of the collapse of the wave function is thus not an argument against the Copenhagen Interpretation, since it only arises from an epistemological error, namely the realism embodied in the Galilean notion of 'primary qualities', as previously explained on this blog.
8. the wave function is not a temporary fix, since it continually withstands all tests to disconfirm it.  What needs fixing is epistemological basis on which it is understood.
9. the notion that the wave function is "essentially subjective" comes close to acknowledging that it is meaning construed of experience by consciousness.
10. the subatomic world, like all 'reality' is a construal of experience of the non-semiotic domain as the material-relational domain of meaning by processes of the mental-verbal domain (consciousness).  In terms of scientific validity, the 'real' features of the sub-atomic world are second-order (theoretical) meanings that are demonstrated to be consistent with the construal of experience as first-order meaning.
11. Heisenberg's notion that the wave function represents 'potency' recognises it as potential, though not explicitly as meaning potential.

A Misrepresentation Of Heisenberg's Epistemology Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Carlo Ravelli, Seven Brief Lessons on Physics (2014: 15):

Heisenberg imagined that electrons do not always exist. They only exist when someone or something watches them, or better, when they are interacting with something else. They materialise in a place, with calculable probability, when colliding with something else. The 'quantum leaps' from one orbit to another are the only means they have of being 'real'; an electron is a set of jumps from one interaction to another. When nothing disturbs it, it is not in any precise place. It is not in a 'place' at all. ...

In quantum mechanics no object has a definite position, except when colliding headlong with something else. In order to describe it in mid-flight, between one interaction and another, we use an abstract mathematical formula which has no existence in real space, only in abstract mathematical space. ...

It is not possible to predict where an electron will reappear, but only to calculate the probability that it will pop up here or there. The question of probability goes to the heart of physics...

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, electrons only 'exist' when they are construed of experience as an instance of meaning by consciousness. It is not sufficient for some thing to detect them; some one must observe what some thing detected, as Heisenberg himself would maintain. Moreover, for Heisenberg, the interaction is between ourselves and Nature, as the following quotes make clear:

Natural science, does not simply describe and explain nature;
it is part of the interplay between nature and ourselves.

What we observe is not nature itself,
but nature exposed to our method of questioning.

The interaction of electrons with "something else" is the means of detecting them, as when a photon is bounced off an electron to identify the position of the electron.

The materialisation of an electron in a given place is the construal of experience by consciousness as an instance of meaning: the location of an electron. The "calculable probability" is the quantification of the electron as potential, whereas the measurement of the location of an electron is the quantification of an electron as instance.

To be clear, quantum leaps are not the only means of electrons being 'real' (construed as an instance of meaning) because not all electrons are trapped within atoms, as exemplified by the flow of electrons in electricity and beta radiation.

It is when there is no conscious construal of experience as meaning that there is no electron in no place.

In Quantum mechanics an object has a definite position whenever its position (meaning) is construed of experience by consciousness. To paraphrase Richard Feynman: to say what an object is doing when you are not looking at it is to produce an error.

The mathematical equation (wave function) quantifies the electron as potential.

Whereas "real" space is a construal of experience as meaning, abstract mathematical space is a reconstrual of meaning as meta-meaning (meaning of meaning).

The probability of where an electron will appear is a quantification of it as potential. Measurements of where it actually appears are quantifications of it as instance.

Lakoff's Cognitive Semantics And Edelman's Conceptual Systems Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Edelman (1992: 247):

With this background, Lakoff attempts to mount a structure for cognitive semantics. Notice first that meaning is already based in embodiment by means of image schemas, kinæsthetic schemas, metonyms, and the categorical relations that underlie metaphor. But this is not enough: Language is supposed to be characterised by symbolic models. These are models that pair linguistic information with the cognitive models that themselves make up a preexisting conceptual system. In as much as preexisting conceptual models are already embodied through their link to bodily and social experience, this link is not an arbitrary one. In contrast, the attribution of such a linkage to generative grammar in terms of mental representations is arbitrary; it is made from on high by the grammarian.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, Lakoff's cognitive models are meanings of language construed of experience of the non-semiotic domain by processes of consciousness.  Edelman's 'pre-existing conceptual system', on the other hand, is the organisation of perceptual meanings — construed of experience of the non-semiotic domain — into systems.  The relation between perceptual meanings and linguistic meanings is one of identity, whereby linguistic values are encoded by reference to perceptual tokens, and perceptual tokens are decoded by reference to linguistic values.

On the cognitive semantics model, human cognition ("intelligence") made human language possible, whereas on the SFL model, human language made human cognition ("intelligence") possible.

The Semiotics Of Walker Percy Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Edelman (1992: 245):

[Walker] Percy was aware that generative or transformational grammar did not explain language and that it was merely a formal description of competence: No relationship is necessary between this collection of algorithms and what goes on in a person's head. He also understood that individual awareness is symbolic as well as intentional. Higher-order consciousness, as I have called it, is a "knowing with" (con-sciousness). Percy faulted both behaviouristic and semiotic approaches to language that do not pay attention to the intersubjective character of any linguistic act. He also faulted the philosophy of phenomenology for "leaving out the other guy." He insisted that all symbolic exchanges involving meaning show a tetradic relationship between symbol, object, and at least two humans. In a dense and resonant sentence, Percy put it thus: "The act of consciousness is the intending of the object as being what it is for both of us under the auspices of a symbol." He describes Helen Keller's rapture when she learned that water was "water" and her urgent desire to know then what other things "were." Language, as Percy put it creates a world, not just an environment. That world is loaded with intentionality, with projections, with feelings, with prejudice, and with affection.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the 'intersubjective character of any linguistic act' and 'the other guy' are modelled in terms of the interpersonal metafunction of language, through which interactants enact themselves and intersubjective relations as meaning.

'All symbolic exchanges' involve instances of expressions (symbols) of meaning construed of experience of the non-semiotic domain.  Helen Keller's rapture derived from her identification of perceptual meaning tokens with linguistic meaning values.

The world is meaning construed of experience of the non-semiotic domain by processes of consciousness, mental and verbal.

Language Acquisition Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Edelman (1992: 243-5):

As recounted by [Margaret] Donaldson [in Children's Minds], John Macnamara has proposed that children are able to learn language because they first make sense of situations involving human interactions. Children make sense of things first and, above all, they make sense of what people do. Donaldson's summary makes it clear that children can see things from another's point of view, not just their own. They reason deductively and carry out inference at age four or so, much more skilfully than had been previously supposed. It also seems that a child first makes sense of situations and of human intentions and then of what is said. This means that language is not independent of the rest of cognition. Therefore we need to account for language acquisition not only developmentally but also evolutionarily.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, in ontogenesis, language and the cultural context construed by language develop together.

Their evolution (phylogenesis) provides the semogenic context for their development in the individual (ontogenesis), which provides the semogenic context for their instantiation; and conversely, their instantiation provides the material for their ontogenesis, which provides the material for their evolution.

On this model, the cognitive processes that the child uses to make sense of situations are the mental processes that construe experience of the non-semiotic domain as the meanings of language.

Chomsky's Notion Of A Language Acquisition Device Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Edelman (1992: 242-3):

All of this is by way of introducing the problem of how thought and language are connected. A clear picture must be drawn of the relation between concept systems and language. Does the mastery of language depend on the existence of a rich and embodied concept system? Or is language mastery more or less autonomous, developing by means of a language acquisition device? 

One of the most pervasive and influential approaches to these critical questions was pioneered by Chomsky. In his formal systems approach, the principal assumption is that the rules of syntax are independent of semantics. Language, in this view, is independent of the rest of cognition. I must take issue with this notion.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, thoughts are the meanings of language projected by the cognitive mental processes of consciousness.

As previously explained, Edelman's 'concept systems' are perceptual meanings organised into systems of relations. In the ontogenesis of linguistic systems, perceptual meanings are identified with concrete experiential linguistic meanings, such that the identity encodes linguistic values by reference to perceptual tokens.

On this view, a biological language acquisition device is, prototypically, a socially-embedded human being.

Intentionality And Referral Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Edelman (1992: 238):

With the homunculus, we come to one of the great problems in considering the matter of the mind: the problem of accounting for intentionality itself. We have already shown that formal semantics cannot refer unambiguously to real states of affairs. But many of the causal aspects of our mental states depend on semantic contents. As Searle has stressed, semantic contents are meaningless without intentionality or the ability to refer to other states or objects. To carry out referral, a formal representation must become an intentional one. In human beings, this requires a consciousness and a self — a biologically based personal awareness, a first person. No theory of mind worth its salt can evade this issue, which is not only a matter of language but also a great biological problem.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, 'real states of affairs' are meanings that are construed of experience of the non-semiotic domain by the processes of consciousness (the mental-verbal domain).

On this view, 'referral' involves the correlation (identification) of meanings of perceptual systems with meanings of language, such that perceptual tokens realise linguistic values.  This identity encodes linguistic values by reference to perceptual tokens (in ontogenesis) and decodes perceptual tokens by reference to linguistic values (in logogenesis).

Memory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Edelman (1992: 238):

Memory is a system property: It differs depending on the structure of the system in which it is expressed. In biological systems, memory must not be confused with the mechanisms that are necessary for its establishment, such as synaptic change. Above all, biological memory is not a replica or a trace that is coded to represent its object. 

In whatever form, human memory involves an apparently open-ended set of connections between subjects and a rich texture of previous knowledge that cannot be adequately represented by the impoverished language of computer science — "storage," "retrieval," "input," "output." To have memory, one must be able to repeat a performance, to assert, to relate matters and categories to one's own position in time and space. To do this, one must have a self, and a conscious self at that.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, memory, as the ability to repeat a performance, includes the ability to instantiate meaning potential as meaning.  In this sense, semiotic systems can be understood as the expansion of memory:

• the elaboration of memory through more delicate distinctions,
• the extension of memory through conjunct and disjunct relations, and
• the enhancement of memory through the conditions on which distinctions, conjunctions and disjunctions are projected through the processes of consciousness,

with language as the most expansive form.

Objectivism Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [3]

Edelman (1992: 237):

Objects in the world are not labelled with dimensions or codes, and the way they are partitioned differs from person to person and from time to time…the mind is not a mirror of nature. Thought is not the manipulation of abstract symbols whose semantics are justified by unambiguous reference to things in the world. Classical categories do not serve in most cases of conceptual categorisation and they do not satisfactorily account for the actual assignment of categories by human beings. There is no unambiguous mapping between the world and our categorisation of it. Objectivism fails.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, all meaning is within semiotic systems.  The non-semiotic domain of experience is meaningless in itself, but is transformed into the meaning of semiotic systems, such as 'objects' of the material-relational domain, by processes of consciousness (the mental-verbal domain of meaning).  This is the sense in which:

• the non-semiotic domain ("objects in the world") has no meaning ('dimensions or codes'), 
• the mental-verbal domain ('the mind') is not a mirror of the non-semiotic domain ("nature"),
• the non-semiotic domain ("things in the world") is not referenced by the mental-verbal domain ('thought'), and
• there is no unambiguous mapping between the non-semiotic domain ("the world") and the semiotic domain ('our categorisation of it').

Objectivism is falsified by Quantum Physics, which demonstrates that the non-semiotic domain only becomes construed as meaning (e.g. as particles) through the conscious processes of an observer.

Science As "Extensional" Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Edelman (1992: 233):

The subsequent development of the computer…reinforced the ideas of efficiency and rigour and the deductive flavour that had already characterised much of physical science. The "neat" deductive formal background of computers, the link with mathematical physics, and the success of the hard sciences looked endlessly extensible. There was a natural tendency to stop a philosophical analysis of scientific exploration at the surface of the human body (the skin and its receptors). Behaviour could be analysed, but not phenomenal experience. In this way, science could remain "extensional," as W. V. Quine put it, and one could declare with him that "to be is to be a value of a variable."

Blogger Comments:

As previously noted, science is concerned with what Galileo distinguished as 'primary qualities' (as opposed to 'secondary qualities'), and what Descartes termed 'res extensa' (as opposed to 'res cogitans').  It is in this Cartesian sense that science 'could remain' "extensional".

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, this means that science is concerned with construals of experience of the non-semiotic domain as material-relational meaning (as opposed to mental-verbal meaning).  It is the mental-verbal domain of meaning that constitutes 'phenomenal experience' in this context.

Objectivism Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [2]

Edelman (1992: 230-2):

Objectivism assumes, in addition to scientific realism, that the world has a definite structure made of entities, properties, and their interrelationships. These are capable of definition according to classical criteria of categorisation that are singly necessary and jointly sufficient to define each category. The world is arranged in such a fashion that it can be completely modelled by what mathematicians and logicians would call set-theoretical models. These kinds of models, which are seen in mathematical logic, consist of symbolic entities appearing singly or in sets, together with their relationships. Symbols in these models are made meaningful (or are given semantic significance) in a unique fashion by assuming that they correspond to entities and categories in the world. Some of the categorical properties of things in the world are considered to be essential; others are seen as accidental.

Because of the singular and well-defined correspondence between set-theoretical symbols and things as defined by classical categorisation, one can, in this view, assume that logical relations between things in the world exist objectively. Thus, this system of symbols is supposed to represent reality, and mental representations must either be true or false insofar as they mirror reality correctly or incorrectly. According to objectivism, this correspondence to things in the world gives meaning to linguistic expressions; meaning is based on this "correct" or "incorrect" definition of truth and thought itself is a manipulation of symbols.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the world structured by entities, properties, and their interrelationships is meaning construed of experience of the non-semiotic domain by the processes of consciousness.

Generally, the categories of linguistic meaning are typically not categorical: that is, they do not display determinate boundaries or fixed criteria of membership (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 547).

The models of mathematicians and logicians are (theoretical) reconstruals of meanings (data) construed of experience of the non-semiotic domain by consciousness.

Scientific Realism Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Edelman (1992: 230):

Objectivism goes beyond the hypothesis of scientific realism, which itself assumes:

(1) a real world (including humans but not depending on them);
(2) a linkage between concepts and that world; and
(3) a stable knowledge that is gained through that link.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, 'the real world including humans' is the semiotic domain (meaning) construed of experience of the non-semiotic domain.  This semiotic domain depends on humans in the sense that it is construed by processes of the mental and verbal domain of meaning (human consciousness).

By the same token, 'concepts' and 'knowledge' are meaning (the semiotic domain) construed of experience of the non-semiotic domain.

The 'stability' of knowledge is the present state of meaning in its evolution as a complex adaptive system.

The Importance Of Meaning For A Theory Of Consciousness Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Edelman (1992: 224-5):

Arguments concerning semantics and meaning are important for any theory of consciousness (and thinking) that takes as its canonical reference our own phenomenal experience as humans and our ability to report that experience by language. … Human experience is not based on so simple an abstraction as a Turing machine; to get our "meanings" we have to grow and communicate in a society.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the reason that 'semantics and meaning' are important for any theory of human 'consciousness (and thinking)' is that the content of language, meaning and wording, is the content of consciousness.

That is, the phenomena that are sensed through mental processes of perception, emotion, desideration and cognition are construals of experience as meaning; the thoughts that are projected through cognitive processes and the wishes that are projected through desiderative processes are construals of experience as meaning.  By the same token, 'our ability to report that experience by language' is the ability to project the wording that realises the meaning construed of experience.

The "getting of meanings", the development of the system in the individual, its ontogenesis, occurs through logogenesis, the instantiation of the system in text.

Putnam's Notion Of 'Meaning' Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Edelman (1992: 224-5):

What is at stake here is the notion of meaning. Meaning, as Putnam puts it, "is interactional. The environment itself plays a role in determining what a speaker's words, or a community's words, refer to." Because such an environment is open-ended, it admits of no a priori inclusive description in terms of effective procedures.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, meaning is a property of semiotic systems. The 'environment' that is open-ended is the non-semiotic domain that is construed as meaning by the processes of consciousness, mental and verbal.  Wordings do not refer to the non-semiotic domain; wordings realise the meanings construed of experience of the non-semiotic domain.

The Many Worlds And Quantum Entanglement Interpretations Of Quantum Theory Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Edelman (1992: 216):

Other physicists have even proposed that there is no "collapse" of the wave function. Instead they conceive that there are "many worlds," in each one of which the function takes on a possible value alternative to the one in this world with this observer whom we see here and now. Still others have proposed a "quantum potential" that might even involve faster-than-light signalling, something that contradicts Einstein's theory of relativity!

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, Everett's 'Many Worlds' interpretation of Quantum Physics misconstrues potential (many possibilities) as actual (many worlds).  See the previous posts on Everett's 'Many Worlds' interpretation here.

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, there is no faster–than–light signalling — as suggested by the notion of Quantum Entanglement and Bohm's Quantum Potential.  Two entangled photons are two related instances of the same system of quantum potential, where these are meanings of the material-relational domain construed by consciousness of experience of the non-semiotic domain.  See the previous posts on Quantum Entanglement here.

Applying The Principle Of Complementarity Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Edelman (1992: 216):

In all fairness it should be said that other distinguished physicists have interpreted the quantum measurement problem without calling the consciousness of the observer into play. Niels Bohr, the father of quantum theory, declared that there is no ultimate or deep reality; one simply applies the principle of complementarity (of which Heisenberg's principle is perhaps the most elegant expression) and then obtains the result dictated by the entire situation of measurement, particle, apparatus, and observer. Bohr's "Copenhagen interpretation" is the position taken by most physicists who use the theory. It gives a formula describing what one observes with an apparatus, one that is ultimately made up of the same kind of quantum particles one is measuring.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the following are all processes of consciousness that construe experience of the non-semiotic domain as meaning of the material-relational domain:

• applying the principle of complementarity,
• obtaining a result,
• observing, and
• measuring.

Wave-particle complementarity is the complementarity of the potential meaning that can be construed of experience, varying according to probability, and the actual instances of meaning that are construed of experience in the conscious process of observation, varying according to frequency.

Von Neumann And Wigner On The Collapse Of The Wave Function Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Edelman (1992: 214-5):

As von Neumann pointed out, the macroscopic measuring instrument is also described by a quantum mechanical wave function (practically speaking, we do not need quantum theory to describe such objects physically). He then formally showed that one cannot draw a line from the wave function of the particle all the way up to the act of the observer to establish the value of ψ at any scale. The "collapse of the wave function" is determined just when the apparatus and the particle interact to give a definite measurement. This collapse was attributed by Wigner to be the result of the intervention of the observer's consciousness. After all, the observer decides to set up the apparatus, decides whether he or she is interested in position or momentum, and actually makes the measurement! To determine the state of this apparatus in von Neumann's view, one apparatus needs another, and that one needs another one, and so on, regressing in an infinite fashion. In Wigner's scheme a phenomenon only becomes actual (that is, the regress is ended) when the observer becomes conscious of it.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, von Neumann's view on the collapse of the wave function is an attempt to understand it solely in terms of the material-relational domain of meaning, ignoring the mental-verbal domain of meaning that actually does the construing.

Wigner's view, on the other hand, takes into account both the material-relational domain of meaning (the arrangement of the apparatus) and the mental-verbal domain (the consciousness of the observer). 

Meaning of the material-relational domain only becomes actual (instantiated) when consciousness construes experience as that meaning.

The Collapse Of The Wave Function Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [3]

Edelman (1992: 215):

If one attempts to determine that position in an experimental setting, however, one loses forever the possibility of determining the momentum to the same precision. This so-called Heisenberg uncertainty is fundamental; there is a conjugate relation between the position and the momentum (the mass times the velocity) of a particle, and this relation sets the precision of the product of these variables to a value no less than Planck's constant. This is not just because to measure a particle's position precisely one must use particles or waves of much smaller wavelength and thus of higher energy, inevitably "kicking up" the particle's momentum. It is a fundamental property of the theory. In considering this relationship operationally, one begins to get a feeling for the strange flavour of quantum theory. If one (the physicist observer) chooses to measure the position of a particle to a certain precision, the act of setting up and carrying out the measurement precludes forever and irreversibly the measurement of the momentum to a similar precision. 

According to the theory, however, no bias exists before the measurement: The wave function ψ is a linear combination of functions describing all possible outcomes of the measurement, and when a measurement is made the wave function "collapses" or "projects onto" one of the possible outcomes.

Blogger Comments:

As previously explained, from the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the collapse of the wave function ψ onto one of the possible outcomes, when a measurement is made, is the process of construing experience as an instance of material-relational meaning potential.

The wave function ψ is a model of (probabilistic) quantum system potential, the meanings that can be construed of experience by consciousness.  The 'outcomes of the measurement' are (statistical) instances of that potential.

Wave-Particle Duality Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [8]

Edelman (1992: 215):

Quantum theory is the most generally applicable of all theories. In dealing with enormous energies and very small particles, this theory has revealed behaviour that confounds ordinary expectations. For example, one particle cannot be identified as distinguishable from another. Particles show duality of behaviour: Under one set of circumstances they are best described as waves, in others as particles. Indeed, as Max Born first suggested, the fundamental wave function ψ in the Schrödinger wave equation, when taken as an absolute value and squared, is a measure of the probability of finding a particle in a given position of space — anywhere!

Blogger Comments:

As previously explained, from the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistics, wave-particle duality is the duality of potential and instance.  Probability measures potential (wave), statistical frequency measures instances of that potential (particles).

The Epistemology Of Physics Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Edelman (1992: 214-5):

But let me sketch out one aspect of the quantum measurement problem to show why these scientists were tempted to bring consciousness in to physics. As I do so, however, please keep in mind that physics is concerned with formal correlations of the most general properties of things in spacetime. Theories of physics are not concerned with the senses proper, with categorising nameable macroscopic objects, or with intentionality. If one delves into quantum mechanics, it is easy to forget these restrictions, because the decisions of the observer appear to affect the measurements he or she makes. To understand this, we have to consider a few salient features of quantum theory.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the reason why theories of physics are not concerned with 'the senses proper' is because they are founded on the Galilean assumption that scientific inquiry is concerned only with the material-relational domain of meaning ('primary qualities'), and not the mental-verbal domain ('secondary qualities').

However, what quantum mechanics demonstrates is that the mental-verbal domain cannot be ignored, since it is this that construes experience as the meaning of the material-relational domain.

The Intervention Of Consciousness In Quantum Measurement Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Edelman (1992: 214):

Such notions of physics, with their generality and predictive power, are beguiling. As powerful as they are, however, profound problems arise in understanding their application. An example comes from the theory of quantum measurement, which must be taken into account when one attempts to measure the position or momentum of a fundamental particle. In facing the paradoxes that arise from these attempts, distinguished mathematicians such as John von Neumann and equally distinguished physicists such as Eugene Wigner were tempted to propose that consciousness itself causally intervenes in the process of quantum measurement.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, in quantum measurement, the participation ('intervenes') of consciousness is not as agent ('causally'), but as the medium of a process of the mental-verbal domain that construes experience as an instance of meaning potential of the material-relational domain.

(Critiques Of) Berkeley's Idealism Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Edelman (1992: 212):

Such a position [panpsychism] "scientises" another view originally based on the philosophy of idealism. In it the world is perceived only through the mind and thus perhaps, as Bishop Berkeley proposed, there is no matter, only mind. On hearing this, Dr. Johnson kicked a stone and stated, "I refute it thus." A better refutation comes from the theory of evolution: If natural selection gives rise to sentient animals, it is difficult to see how the selecting environment and the brain can both be mental events in a single sentient animal that also has progeny undergoing natural selection. The mind reels trying to comprehend how such a complication would ever come to pass.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, both matter and mind are construals of experience as meaning: the material-relational domain and the mental-material domain.

A stone is a construal of experience as first-order meaning of the material-relational domain, whereas "I refute it thus" is construal of experience as second-order wording: a projected locution of the mental-verbal domain.

However, whereas the brain is also a construal of experience as first-order meaning of the material-relational domain (data), the selecting environment is a reconstrual of first-order meaning of the material-relational domain as meaning of the language of evolutionary biology (theory).

The Place Of Conscious Observers In Scientific Descriptions Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Edelman (1992: 209):

The solution to the problem of how we know, feel, and are aware is not contained in a philosophical sentence, however profound. It must emerge from an understanding of how biological systems and relationships evolved in the physical world. 

When that evolution resulted in language, the imaginable world became infinite. There is great beauty and much hope in the realisation of this open-endedness of imagination. But we must continually return from that world to the world of matter if we are to see how as conscious observers we are actually placed within our own descriptions. Analysing that placement will be one of the major goals of the science of the future.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the world of matter is the world of the material-relational domain of first-order meaning (phenomena), whereas the world of imagination is the world of second-order meaning (metaphenomena): the projected ideas and locutions of the symbolic processing of the mental-verbal domain.

The place of the conscious observer in scientific descriptions is as the mental-verbal medium through which the meaning of language, construed of experience, is reconstrued as the meaning of the language of science.

Because the mental-verbal domain ('secondary qualities') is not the concern of Galilean science, it is limited to understanding the place of conscious observers in its descriptions only in material-relational terms.

The Evolution Of Science Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Edelman (1992: 207-8):

Memory underlies meaning. With the transformation of meaning made possible by the embodiment of concepts as described by the TNGS, it became possible within human cultural history to develop true information-processing systems. The historical development of science by social transmission in human culture has made it possible for us to loop back into the truth through chains of knowledge. But unlike the development of memory, this explosive transmission is no longer Darwinian. It follows Lamarckian rules because of the character of informational systems and the nature of meaning itself. The contents of informational systems are transferred by use; no genetic hereditary principle is needed. The transfer is to somatic systems, each one unique, and the results have been stunning — the transformation of the environment by the human mind in ways that are both valuable and horrendous.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, it is the construal of experience as the meaning of language that made it "possible within human cultural history to develop true information-processing systems".

The "explosive transmission" of science in human culture is indeed Darwinian, and not Lamarckian, because the material basis of (change in) meaning is the (change in) somatic selection of variant neuronal groups in populations in individuals — as described by Edelman's TNGS — in human populations, over generations.

The Measurements Of Observers Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Edelman (1992: 199):

Beginning with Planck's discovery of the quantum, and continuing through the early formulations of quantum theory by Bohr and Heisenberg and of the theory of relativity by Einstein, observers were no longer seen as fully detached from their measurements. In quantum measurements, the way in which observers choose to arrange their apparatus determines the outcome. In relativity theory, observers' measurements of time and length depend on their relative velocity and acceleration. Thus, the observers' conscious choices in the one case and their physical location in the other must explicitly be taken into account.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, measurements are construals of experience as material-relational domain of meaning by the mental-verbal domain of meaning (conscious observers).

The reason why measurements depend on the arrangement of the apparatus (Quantum Theory) and the relative velocity of the observer (Special Relativity) is because the potential meanings that can be instantiated as measurements vary with material-relational conditions of the phenomena (Quantum Theory) and conscious observer (Special Relativity).

The Relation Of Physics To Biology Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Edelman (1992: 198):

Physics and biology will "correspond" with each other in an intimate way, certainly in the next century and possibly even sooner than that. At the very least, they will have an exchange about how the human observer influences physical measurements and how the observers' perceptions relate to their physical descriptions. This is a key problem in quantum mechanics.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the relation of 'correspondence' between physics and biology can be understood in terms of symbolic abstraction (stratification), such that the meanings of biology are realised by the realisation of the meanings of chemistry in the meanings of physics. Or, from the reverse perspective, the meanings of physics realise the realisation of the meanings of biology in the meanings of chemistry.

The human observer 'influences' physical measurements by construing them of experience.  The observers' perceptions are construals of experience as the meaning of language, whereas their physical descriptions are reconstruals of such meaning as the meaning of the language of physics.

Science, Mathematics And Logic Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Edelman (1992: 198):

Higher-order consciousness leads to a rich cognitive, affective, and imaginative domain — feelings (qualia), thought, emotions, self-awareness, will, and imagination. It can construct artificial mental objects such as fantasies. In culture, it leads to studies of the stable relations among events (science) and among mental objects (mathematics), as well as to studies of the relations among sentences that refer to events and mental objects (logic).

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, it is language that provides self-awareness of higher-order consciousness and its mental processes, the most general being those of perception (of 'qualia'), cognition ('thought', 'imagination', 'fantasy'), desideration ('will') and emotion.

Through mental processes of cognition, the meanings of language that are construed of experience become reconstrued as the meanings of the specialised registers of science, mathematics and logic.

Cosmology Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Edelman (1992: 197):

Cosmology has formed part of the myth and the science of many civilisations. In it the mind has always played a central role, whether interior, exterior, or ulterior. It is natural for creatures like ourselves to wonder how everything came about, how we ourselves got here, and how we could come to be aware of the world in which we find ourselves. 

The religious cosmologies of the past have been replaced in some cultures by a scientific cosmology, one with remarkable ties to the farthest reaches of theoretical physics. But as grand and mysterious and beautiful as this scientific cosmology is, it has no inherent principle that would lead us to ourselves: observers who are conscious, who formulate physics and relate it to cosmology, and who have the urge to place ourselves within the scientific world view we have constructed. Even a "theory of everything," as some physicists call it, would be incomplete if it did not provide us with such a principle.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, cosmologies are reconstruals of the material-relational meanings of language, construed of experience, as the meanings of the language of mythology or science.  The reconstruals of meaning in the language of mythology deploy lexical metaphor, words as tokens of mythic values, whereas the reconstruals of meaning in the language of science deploy grammatical metaphor.

The rôle of the mind, of conscious observers, is to reconstrue the meaning of language as the meaning of the language of cosmology.

With regard to mythology, Joseph Campbell interprets its general function as putting humans in accord with their natural and social environments, and distinguishes four general functions: mystical, pedagogical, sociological and cosmological, with the sciences as the development of the last of these functions.

The Comprehensibility Of The Universe Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Edelman (1992: 197):

The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.

— Albert Einstein

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, comprehending the universe scientifically is comprehensible as the construing of experience as the meanings of the language of science.

Art Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Edelman (1992: 176):

What is perhaps most extraordinary about conscious human beings is their art — their ability to convey feelings and emotions symbolically and formally in external objects such as poems, paintings, or symphonies. The summaries of conscious states constrained by history, culture, specific training, and skill that are realised in works of art are not susceptible to the methods of scientific analysis. Again there is no mystification in this denial, for understanding and responding to these objects requires reference to ourselves in a social and symbolic mode. No external, objective analysis, even if possible, supplants the individual responses and intersubjective exchange that takes place within a given tradition and culture.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, human art, like higher-order consciousness, is made possible by language.  The construal of experience as linguistic meaning provides the raw material for, not only the expression of those meanings across various artistic forms, but also for the reconstrual of meaning as the meaning of theories of art, such as music theory, thereby further expanding the potential of artistic expression.

The reason why such matters are not susceptible to the methods of scientific analysis is that Galilean science is only concerned with the material-relational domain ('primary qualities'), not with the mental-verbal domain ('secondary qualities') that processes meaning.

Feelings And Emotions Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Edelman (1992: 176):

Feelings are a part of the conscious state and are the processes that we associate with the notions of qualia as they relate to the self. They are not emotions, however, for emotions have strong cognitive components that mix feelings with willing and with judgments in an extraordinarily complicated way. Emotions may be considered the most complex of mental states or processes insofar as they mix with all other processes (usually in a very specific way, depending on the emotion). They are not made simpler by the fact that they also have historical and social bases.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, emotions are construed in two complementary ways: as mental processes ('enjoy') and as attributed qualities of mental projection ('joyous').

Edelman's 'feelings associated with qualia' are mental processes of perception, whereas Edelman's 'emotions' are the mixture of the remaining three types of mental processes: emotion, cognition and desideration.

Processes Of The Mind Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Edelman (1992: 173, 175):

How can a book on the matter of the mind pay so little attention to thinking, willing, and judging, or to feeling, emotion, and dreaming? Partly, this has to do with my original intentions, which were to describe the necessary bases for consciousness and meaning in a scientific fashion. I have attempted this in the faith that further and more sufficient psychological explorations can be launched once this description is substantiated. … 

At a certain practical point, therefore, attempts to reduce psychology to neuroscience must fail. Given that the pursuit of thought as a skill depends on social and cultural interaction, convention, and logic, as well as on metaphor, purely biological methods as they presently exist are insufficient. In part, this is because thought at its highest levels is recursive and symbolic. Because we are each idiosyncratic sources of semantic interpretation, and because intersubjective communication is essential for thought (whether with a real or imaginary interlocutor), we must use and study these capacities in their own right.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, Edelman's scientific model of the mind is Galilean science, and so models the mind in terms of processes of its material-relational domain: a socially embedded, embodied brain.  The complement of this model is a model of the mind in terms of processes of its mental-verbal domain, and the contents of consciousness — meanings and wordings — that mental and verbal processes project.

Limitations In Our Thought Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Edelman (1992: 161):

That consciousness arose in the material order does not restrain intellectual trade; philosophy itself is witness to this conclusion. But it does limit us, despite our capacity to extend our senses and our powers of calculation through physical devices. Given how meaning is defined in this book, we must accept a position of qualified realism. Our description of the world is qualified by the way in which our concepts arise. And although there may be infinite freedom within a grammar, our language and our ideas of meaning go far beyond the rules of grammar. … Despite the remarkable extensions of meaning by our calculations and our experiments, we must admit that we may well be limited in our thought by the way in which we are constituted as products of evolutionary morphology.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, our description of the world is a construal of experience as the meaning of language, with these meanings reconstrued in the language of science, philosophy, mythology, etc.  It is the grammar of language that construes — and so, makes possible — the types of meanings we can make, the ideas we can think, in the fields of science, philosophy, mythology, etc. — augmented by other semiotic systems, such as the pictorial, made possible by language.

The functioning of this mental-verbal domain of construing experience as meaning — higher-order consciousness — depends on the functioning of its material-relational domain; that is, on the functioning of an evolved, species-specific, socially embedded, embodied brain.

Realism And Materialism Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Edelman (1992: 161):

By taking the position of biologically based epistemology, we are in some sense realists and also sophisticated materialists. … And by assuming that the brain is a somatic selective system, we rule out the idea of the little man or homunculus in the head. He is no more necessary to the sciences of somatic recognition than special creation or the argument from design is to evolution. If he is res cogitans, he is exorcised.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, both realism and materialism assume that meaning is transcendent of semiotic systems.  Realism assumes that reality exists independent of the mind; materialism assumes that materiality is the basis of reality.

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, meaning is a property of semiotic systems, and on this basis, reality and existence are construals of experience as meaning.  By the same token, materiality is the construal of experience as the material-relational domain of meaning.

Galilean science is concerned with a realist interpretation of the material-relation domain ('primary qualities') at the expense of the mental-verbal domain ('secondary qualities').  Cartesian philosophy justifies the material-relational domain (res extensa) by the certainty of the mental-verbal domain (res cogitans).

Exorcising the res cogitans is consistent with Galilean science, but it leaves the mental-verbal domain only accounted for in terms of the material-relational domain.

The Epistemological Lesson Of Quantum Physics Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Edelman (1992: 160):

What can we say constructively about science and about the possibility of a theory of knowledge based on biology — a biologically based epistemology? 

To construct a reasonable account, we must recognise that modern particle physics and field theory have eliminated the notion of the world as a deterministic or clockwork mechanism. This does not mean that mechanisms cannot be described or be useful (as they are to both macroscopic physics and biology). It means simply that the universe cannot be sensibly considered at all scales in such terms.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the world that is modelled (reconstrued) by particle physics and field theory is meaning construed of experience in language.  As explained earlier on this blog, what quantum theory actually demonstrates is that the construal of experience as meaning (e.g. as an electron) is itself probabilistic, rather than a deterministic mechanism.

For example, as previously explained, wave-particle duality can be understood as 'potential-instance duality', with the wave perspective accounting for the potential — measured as probability — of construing experience as a photon, and the particle perspective accounting for actual instances — measured as statistics — of construing experience as a photon.

Similarly, field theory identifies the extent of space-time to which these varying probabilities of being instantiated apply.

Assumptions Of A Scientific View Of The Mind Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Edelman (1992: 159):

We should first state the assumptions of a scientific view [of the mind]:

There is a real world — one described by the laws of physics, which apply everywhere. (This is the physics assumption.) 

We are embedded in that world, follow its laws, and have evolved from an ancient origin. The mind arose on the basis of new evolutionary morphology. (This is the evolutionary assumption.) 

It is possible to put the mind back into nature. A science of mind based on biology is feasible. The way to avoid vicious circles and dead ends is to construct a brain theory based on selectionist principles. (This is the central argument of this book.)

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the real world described by the laws of physics is a construal of experience as the material-relational domain of meaning.  The laws of physics are reconstruals of such meanings as the meanings of theory.

The laws of physics, as reconstruals of meaning, are not obeyed by the construals of experience that they describe, any more than a map is obeyed by the terrain it reconstrues.

The 'we' that is embedded in the material-relational domain of meaning construed of experience is the construal of experience as the mental-verbal domain of meaning.

Putting the mind back into nature would entail not only identifying the processes of its material-relational domain, an embodied brain, but also identifying the processes of the mental-verbal domain.  This distinction of domains largely corresponds to the Galilean distinction between primary and secondary qualities, and the Cartesian distinction between res extensa and res cogitans.

The Human Implications Of The Theory Of Neuronal Group Selection Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Edelman (1992: 155):

This final set of chapters asks about the implications of our new brain theory for human (and some inhuman) concerns. It pleads for an open-mindedness about the mind. It suggests that our knowledge is not incorrigible, that we are deeply embedded in the matter of the world as well as in the matter of the mind, that we are each of us unique as individuals (and importantly so), that our thinking in a culture is a critical matter for our being human and for our grasping of meaning, and that, even in disease, our minds are marvellously adaptive. … Above all, it suggests that constructing an adequate theory of the brain promises to offer bases for new harmonies, including those according to which we may place ourselves in the universe.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, knowledge is meaning construed of experience, meaning which may then be reconstrued, for example, as the meaning of scientific theories.

Such systems of meaning are evolving socio-semiotic systems whose material base, on Edelman's model, is the selection of neuronal groups in global mappings in the brains of individuals, who exchange meanings with each other in communities, by expressing such meanings in wordings.

It is the specific evolution of systems of meaning in each individual human, on this material base, that makes each individual human unique.

What is embedded in the matter of the world and the matter of the mind is a symboliser that mediates symbolic processing: whether as a senser that mediates 'interior' mental processes or as a sayer that mediates 'exterior' verbal processes.

It is the emergence of language that is the 'critical matter for our being human and for our grasping of meaning' and it is language that construes the culture of human thinking and saying.

Interestingly, from the perspective of comparative mythologist, Joseph Campbell, putting humans in harmony with Nature is a primary function of the prescientific reconstruals of experience known as mythological systems.