Lee Corbin
> I wish to emphasize that according to a traditional realist's
> beliefs, observer moments are objective and real, and hence
> do exist, so that there is nothing objectionable about speculations
> concerning them.
> Suppose that a mouse during some small time delta t is in
> a particular state (or set of states, if you wish to be picky).
> In the objective tradition we do not next inquire about what
> it seems like to the mouse, or what the mouse (read human)
> could report or recall about the moment, or whether this moment
> is "the same to the mouse" as some other moment. Instead, we
> suppose that at very *least* the entire brain state is what
> gives rise to the observer moment as a purely physical or
> ideal process.
> (In all likelihood, much less than the whole brain is required,
> but so far 21st century science can only speculate on what the
> proper subset of functioning is, or what the proper *calculation*
> is that's going on in those neurons which would be appropriate to
> use as the "observer moment".)
> Since there is *some* objective process taking place, it must be
> the case that this same, identical process is taking place at
> other times and places. At this point I would usually branch off
> and discuss the total benefit accruing to the mouse-person, but
> it's really a different topic.
> The final word: OMs can be viewed as objective processes, and
> efforts to find the simplest explanation considering Everything
> seem quite appropriate.
> Lee

It sounds like a final word but I'd urge caution. It may be _your_ final word 
but not the natural world's final world. The system of observer moments could 
be just as 'mathematical'/computational and be an illusion - but a real 
illusion that is fit for purpose. Evolutionary considerations do not suggest 
that observation system be any better than that consistent with survival (not 
those necessities compatible with the survival of a mathematician's view of the 
observation system N million years later) :-)

A cohort of elemental subjective experiences configured to present an emergent 
_apparent_ observation as an objective view equally fits the circumstances you 
describe and is a simpler solution. Simpler becasue a brain does not have to 
make a-priori assertions about everything that is 'not' brain. It can slap 
computational paint on reality and come up with an 'adequate' picture without 
knowing anything about how 'not brain' works. Isn't that what it has to do? How 
han a brain that knows nothing about the universe be created from the universe 
from nothing without making such shortcuts?

This is an _apparent_ objective view of a 'just-as-real' reality. It also can 
be hypothesisesed to deliver what we have. If a theory insists that the 
objective view has any greater status than this then part of the theory should 
explain why it is necessarily that way and how its prescribed circumstances 
would deliver a solution preferred by the natural world and indeed a very 
specific detailing of the difference between the two.

Hence my advice of caution in attributing the source of the 'observer moment' 
to anything more than a subjectively delivered virtual objective view. 


Colin Hales

Reply via email to