On Jan 27, 7:50�am, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le 26-janv.-07, � 19:00, Tom Caylor a �crit :
> > Why do we need to eliminate first-person white rabbits? �For purposes
> > of science, is not elimination of third-person (or first-person plural)
> > white rabbits sufficient?

> That would be dishonest. You could eliminate the very idea of first
> person, like the eliminativist materialist.

I agree with you.  As you saw below my question was rhetorical. :)

> > So what if we hallucinate, or dream about a
> > talking white rabbit?

> It is because of those dreams that we have to take into account the
> consistent but incorrect theories, and thus modalities or situations
> with truth of Bp & Dp & ~p.
> > We can come back to "scientific reality" through
> > the third-person or first-person plural, i.e. methods of "objectivity"
> > (third-person/first-person plural view by our own definition).

> We can have objective talk on first person once we share definitions.
> Recall that my motivation is the mind body problem.
> Hiding that a theory is wrong for the experiences is cheating, a little
> bit like physicalist explanation of the mind which most of the time
> explains it away.
> > By the way, I'm not implying that scientific reality is sufficient for
> > meaning of life. ;)

> I hope so.

> > My above questions are perhaps a bit rhetorical in
> > this sense. �I think the answer is that we long to find meaning solely
> > through science so that we can control everything, and so we *try* to
> > erect science as the god over all meaning.

> That is just scientism, not science. And then lobian machine are
> already able to guess correctly that meaning or truth is much vaster
> than reason or proof. You should love comp :-)
> Bruno

I'm glad I agree with you that the existence of the first-person (or 
meaning or truth) cannot be ignored through an eliminative proof.  But 
your comp seems also to be only eliminative in nature, noting the 
words above "vaster".  Thus meaning and truth are simply proved to be 
things that are beyond reach.  This doesn't seem to be very useful.  
And yet you (have to?) believe that meaning and truth are "out there" 
somewhere and that these systems/sets of proof are headed in the right 
direction.  This seems to be saying that a fractal, as it gets 
increasingly complex, is approaching the truth.  This is not simply an 
analogy.  You are saying that a mathematical entity is approaching 
*the truth*, all the kinds of truth that there are, including the 
solution to the problem of evil, and the answer to the meaning of 


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