"1Z" wrote: > Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> It would be a problem if the actual infinities or infinitesimals were thrid person describable *and* playing some role in the process of individuating consciousness. In that case comp is false. >> About solipsism I am not sure why you introduce the subject. It seems to me nobody defend it in the list. > > Explainning matter as a pattern of experiences , rather than in > a "stuffy" way, is methodological solipsism. >
I am doing a detailed look at the relationship between solipsism and science. I am writing it up...will post it on the list (if that's OK...it's not too big!) when it's Ok to read.. I am surprised at what I found. The feedback on solipsism is interesting... Russel is right in the sense that 'as-if' instrumentalism seems to characterise scientific behaviour...where scientists act 'as-if' the external world existed. At the same time, the facts of neuroscience tell us that scientific evidence arrives as contents of phenomenal consciousness, so science is, in fact, all about correlated appearances... and it is an 'as-if' solipsism. That is, science is also acting 'as-if' solipsism ( as per "1Z" 'methodological solipsism) defines the route to knowledge but is actually in denial of solipsism! The weird state that seems to be in place is that science is tacitly radically solipsistic in respect of what evidence is available (phenomenal consciousness is all there is), whilst scientist's actual behaviour denies this solipsism and tacitly adopts the 'as-if' stance in respect of the existence of an external world. The net affect is that the external world is assumed to exist, consciousness is eschewed as evidence of anything in its own right and objectivity allows correlates of appearances within consciousness to literally define the workings of the (assumed existent) external world. Science is a methodological-solispsist-in-denial instrumentalism? whew! This paradoxical situation I have analysed out and, I hope, straightened out. The answer lies not in adopting/rejecting solipsism per se (although solipsism is logically untenable for subtle reasons) , but in merely recognising what scientific evidence is actually there and what it is evidence of. At least then scientists will have a consistent position and will no longer need to think one way and behave another. At the moment they are 'having it both ways' and have no awareness of it. ...if you talk to mainstream neuroscientists, to whom this matters the most (in terms of understanding the available evidence) they have no clue what you are on about...but they go right on doing it without question...staring down the microscope with their phenomenal consciouess at the "external world" they assume they are directly characterising without phenomenal consciousness, correlating the appearances of test and control..day in, day out... The thing is, none of it actually matters...until one day you decide scientifically study phenomenal cosnciousness... which I think I have said previously.... so many ways to get to the same place! I'll probably dump the text of 'Solipsism and Science' to the list tomorrow. Who'd have thought that in looking at AI i'd end up forced to analyse solipsism in science? cheers colin hales --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
