sorry for the misaddressing...
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Aditya Varun Chadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Jul 30, 2005 8:47 PM
Subject: Re: What We Can Know About the World
To: Jesse Mazer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
At the risk of barging in once again,
> Since there is nothing specifically human about my idea of
> "observer-moments" this analogy doesn't really work.
I agree more with this version of "observer-moments". An assumption
that an "observer" is a human or even a "biological" entity is being
I think a common error that we make is to assume some vague concept of
"consciousness" and then limit our notion of observation as a process
that only "conscious" entities can undertake/undergo.
We only believe we are conscious, we have no "proof" or "physical
evidence", because ALL our thought-systems ASSUME consciousness, it is
just a human axiom. Or taken another way, conscious is a human-made
word representing just the way we (and our "close relatives" for the
relatively liberal) work. Nothing special about it.
Why not allow "observation" to be any event in which any set of
entities (even the most "fundamental" entities) interact among each
other in any way? After all, human observation can be explained as the
"physical" interactions of our senses/brain with "other" entities.
(i.e. just events)
Notice that this "definition" (or description, for the
"definition"-averse) cuts through a WHOLE lot of assumptions,
ultimately revealing (at least to me) the IDENTITY (sameness) of the
terms "Event" and "Observer-Moment".
Further, no version of "Observation" adopted by any Idealists violates
this definition. Also, the converse is not hard to accept if we are
just a bit more open minded (doing away with the "speciality" of human
In the system that emerges, yes, Observer-Moments alone ARE a
candidate for giving us a ToE, but for this, they cannot be
differentiated from our simple notion of "Event". (The realist favours
the term Event, the Idealist favours Observer-Moment)
I have been tilted towards what this list seems to call "realism"
since the start, but I maintain that digging deep enough, the realism
and idealism being discussed here aren't that different if we just use
a "Realish-Idealish, Idealish-Realish" dictionary, and I believe all
terms in either "language" have equivalent translations in the other.
I think Mazer has put this across quite nicely, so I pause here.
Aditya Varun Chadha
adichad AT gmail.com