Bruno Marchal wrote: .
Lee Corbin wrote:

My friends and I (and probably Daniel Dennett and so on) believe
that people who demand a 1st person "account of the world" (e.g.
Chalmers) will never get anywhere.

Actually, this is one of the main point where I differ from George Levy (OK George?), although I could make sense of it. The point is, and Dennett agrees on this, that, in cognitive *science*, we need to develop some third person discourse on the first person discourses.
OK, strictly speaking the quantum and physical discourses appears at some first person (plural) level.

Chalmers is not getting anywhere(*), ok. Perhaps we agree on this.

(*) Using Everett to defend dualism! See the quite good explanation how Everett is deeply monist in the book:
PRIMAS H., 1981, Chemistry, Quantum Mechanics and Reductionism, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (second, corrected edition : 1983)

Hi Bruno and Lee,
I would invert Dennett's point to increase its emphasis: "we need to develop some first person discourses on the third person discourse." In other words, I believe that the foundation is first person, and that third person is a consequence of anthropically determined constraints that we must share.
I have been quiet recently in part because of the sheer volume of this list. As you know Bruno I am an extreme believer in first person. I have acquired this position mainly by looking at two seemingly opposite trends in science. Scientific theories have become less and less anthropocentric removing the earth and man as the center of the universe. (Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Michelson-Morley). The Earth does not occupy a priviledged position.  There is no Ether. There is no absolute. Paradoxically, the observer has acquired greater importance through the work (Relativity Theory, Quantum Theory with the MWI, Shannon's communication theory). Relativity of the observer seems to be pervasive, not just with regards "Relativity Theory" but also with regards Quantum Theroy. It is not a coincidence that Everett called his paper "Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics." Everything is relative to the observer. So why not go all the way.... and take the first person as the base. This approach tackles the Mind-Body problem up-front rather than after the fact. "I" becomes fundamental: the starting assumption as well as an observable fact. "I" exists in the Plenitude and is constrained to see a slice of the Plenitude - the world it sees - by Anthropic constraints. Thus "I" and the world it sees share the same structure and logic whatever that logic may be. There are probably more than one I's/worlds/logics that satisfy this requirement. Bruno, you are the expert in logic. Subjective reality is fundamental. Objective reality arises because we share the same "I" and therefore the same world (slice view of the plenitude).

George

Reply via email to