Good argumentation, Russell, however...:

 Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>...From my point of view, it appears to be necessary
 to get the laws of physics as we known them. If there
were people  around with a different sort of mind, do
they see a different sort of  physics? 
Lots of questions. ...

What 'sort of mind'? instead of 'what this sort'? 
Our ideational development parallelled the notions we
formulated into our views about the world, including
the model of a physical world, with all its habitual
observations ("laws"), using something we nonchanatly
call "mind". A different route would have (maybe) seen
different factors for the evolution (=total history)
of our universe and build a different model for the
"physical" world. We are the 3D-Abbott people. We
condone 2 poles in our physics: + and -, not more and
have problems what to do with the 4th dimension (time)
if we think reasonably. 

If one accepts my take on 'consciousness' as the
acknowledgement of and response to information (not in
the Shannonic sense), which is expandable to
everything in the world (ideation etc.) 'we' - or
whatever takes a 'thinking' role in a universe - would
(maybe) recognize other factors and the 'model' for
understanding the observations would be different. If
such different mindset (?) would have invented colors
and shade-compositions instead of numbers....?????

Is it possible at all to free ourselves from the
dungeon we incarcerated ourselves with our models? 
What may the 'mind' come up with, if it were free? 
New Nobel prizes? I doubt. The committee is enslaved.

Please, take a deep breath and do not be angry at me!

John Mikes

Reply via email to