Le 31-déc.-06, à 04:59, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit (to Tom Caylor):

Of course: questions of personal meaning are not scientific questions. Physics may show you how to build a nuclear bomb, but it won't tell you whether you should use it.

But Physics, per se,  is not supposed to answer this.
Socio-economics could give light, as could "computer simulation of nuclear explosion in cities ...".

And some (still putative) theory of ethics could perhaps put light on that question too. Well, the ultimate decision is a problem for the "president" .... But the president and its advisers could consult some decision theory ... perhaps.

Where I think I disagree with you [Tom] is that you seem to want to reduce the irreducible and make values and personal meaning real world objects, albeit not of the kind that can be detected by scientific instruments, perhaps issued by God. But in proposing this you are swapping one irreducible entity extremely well-grounded in empirical evidence (I know I'm conscious, and I know that when my brain stops so does my consciousness) for another irreducible entity with no grounding in empirical evidence whatsoever.

I agree that you know you are conscious. Well, I don't know that but I have good evidences and hope. But I don't see any evidence that when your brain stops so does your consciousness. I can understand the belief (not even knowledge) that when your brain stops relatively to mine (in case we share an history), then so does the possibility of your consciousness to manifest itself relatively to me; but no more. Actually what does mean the expression "my brain stops". In all universe? all multiverses, all computational histories ... You have to be precise which theory you are using when relating some 3-me (like "my brain") and some 1-me (like the knower, the conscious "I").

I agree with some critics you make with respect to Tom Caylor notion of personal God, but sometimes, it seems to me, you have a conception of reality which could as criticable as Caylor's one. Err... i see your particular point is valid though, but you are using misleading images with respect to the consequence of mechanism (I guess you are aware but that you want to remain short perhaps).

Must go now. Happy wishes for all persons,



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