Le 28-déc.-06, à 21:54, Brent Meeker a écrit :  (to Jef)

I think "objective" should just be understood as denoting subjective agreement from different viewpoints.

Curiosuly enough perhaps I could agree if you were saying "physically objective" can be understood as denoting subjective agreement. But frankly I do not believe that 17 is prime depends on any agreement between different viewpoints (but the definition of 17 and prime of course). But about physics I agree. And I know that you know how Vic Stenger extracts a big deal of physics from invariance for change of referential systems.

I'd say experience is always "direct", an adjective which really adds nothing. An experience just is. If it has to be interpreted *then* you've fallen into an infinite regress: who experiences the interpretation.

I can understand why 1-experience seems direct, but I am not sure this really make sense. As I said to Jef, infinite regression in computer science can be solved.

To call it an illusion goes too far. I'd say the self is a model or an abstract construct - but it models something, it has predictive power. If you start to call things like that "illusions" then everything is an illusion and the word has lost its meaning.




You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to