Ho Bruno

Sorry, I have been unclear with myself and with you. I have been lumping 
together the assumption of an "objective physical world" and an 
"objective platonic world". So you are right, I do reject the objective 
physical world, but why stop there? Is there a need for an objective 
platonic world? Would it be possible to go one more step - the last step 
hopefully - and show that a the world that we perceive is solely tied to 
our own consciousness? So I am more extreme than you thought. I believe 
that the only necessary assumption is the subjective world. Just like 
Descartes said: Cogito...

I think that the world and consciousness co-emerge together, and the 
rules governing one are tied to the rules governing the other. In a 
sense Church's thesis is tied to the Anthropic principle.  Subjective 
reality also ties in nicely with relativity and with the relative 
formulation of QT.

This being said, I am not denying physical reality or objective reality. 
However these may be derivable from purely subjective reality. Our 
experience of a common physical reality and a common objective reality 
require the existence of common physical frame of reference and a common 
platonic frame of reference respectively.  A common platonic frame of 
reference implies that there are other platonic frames of 
references.....This is unthinkable... literally.  Maybe I have painted 
myself into a corner.... Yet maybe not... No one in this Universe can say...

George


Bruno Marchal wrote:

>Hi George,
>
>I think that we agree on the main line. Note that I never have 
>pretended that the conjunction of comp and weak materialism (the 
>doctrine which asserts the existence of primary matter) gives a 
>contradiction. What the filmed-graph and/or Maudlin shows is that comp 
>makes materialism
>empty of any explicative power, so that your "ether" image is quite 
>appropriate. Primary matter makes, through comp, the observation of 
>matter (physics) and of course qualia, devoied of any explanation power 
>even about just the apparent presence of physical laws.
>I do think nevertheless that you could be a little quick when asserting 
>that the mind-body problem is solved at the outset when we abandon the 
>postulate of an objective (I guess you mean physical) world. I hope you 
>believe in some objective world, being it number theoretical or 
>computer science theoretical, etc.
>You point "3)" (see below) is quite relevant sure,
>
>Bruno
>
>
>Le 08-oct.-07, à 05:10, George Levy a écrit :
>
>  
>
>>Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>I think that Maudlin refers to the conjunction of the comp hyp and
>>>supervenience, where consciousness is supposed to be linked (most of
>>>the time in a sort of "real-time" way) to the *computational activity*
>>>of the brain, and not to the history of any of the state occurring in
>>>that computation.
>>>
>>>If you decide to attach consciousness to the whole physical history,
>>>then you can perhaps keep comp by making the substitution level very
>>>low, but once the level is chosen, I am not sure how you will make it
>>>possible for the machine to distinguish a purely arithmetical version
>>>of that history (in the arithmetical "plenitude" (your wording)) from
>>>a "genuinely physical one" (and what would that means?). Hmmm...
>>>perhaps I am quick here ...
>>>
>>>May be I also miss your point. This is vastly more complex than the
>>>seven first steps of UDA, sure. I have to think how to make this
>>>transparently clear or ... false.
>>>      
>>>
>>As you know I believe that the physical world can be derived from
>>consciousness operating on a platonic "arithmetic plenitude."
>>Consequently, tokens describing objective instances in a physical world
>>cease to be fundamental. Instead, platonic types become fundamentals. 
>>In
>>the platonic world each type exists only once. Hence the whole concept
>>of indexicals looses its functionality. Uniqueness of types leads
>>naturally to the "merging universes:" If two observers together with 
>>the
>>world that they observe (within a light cone for example) are identical
>>then these two observers are indistinguishable from themselves and are
>>actually one and the same.
>>
>>I have argued (off list) about my platonic outlook versus the more
>>established (objective reality) Aristotelian viewpoint and I was told
>>that I am attempting to undo more than 2000 years of philosophy going
>>back to Plato. Dealing with types only presents formidable logical
>>difficulties:  How can types exist without tokens?  I find extremely
>>difficult to "prove" that the absence of an objective reality at the
>>fundamental level. Similarly, about a century ago people were asking 
>>how
>>can light travel without Ether. How can one "prove" that Ether does not
>>exist? Of course one can't but one can show that Ether is not necessary
>>to explain wave propagation. Similarly, I think that the best one can
>>achieve is to show that the objective world is not necessary for
>>consciousness to exist and to perceive or observe a world.
>>
>>However, some points can be made: getting rid of the objective world
>>postulate has the following advantages:
>>
>>1) The resulting theory (or model) is simpler and more universal (Occam
>>Razor)
>>2) The mind-body problem is eliminated at the outset.
>>3) Physics has been evolving toward greater and greater emphasis on the
>>observer. So why not go all the way and see what happens?
>>
>>I don't find Maudlin argument convincing. Recording the output of a
>>computer and replaying the recording spreads out the processing in time
>>and can be used to link various processes across time but does not 
>>prove
>>that the consciousness is independent of a physical substrate.
>>Rearranging a tape interferes with the thought experiment and should 
>>not
>>be allowed if we are going to play fair. By the way, I find the phrases
>>"supervenience" and "physical supervenience" confusing. At first glance
>>I am not sure if physical supervenience means the physical world
>>supervening on the mental world or vice versa. I would prefer to use 
>>the
>>active tense and say  "the physical world supervening on the mental
>>world," or even use the expression "the physical world acting as a
>>substrate for consciousness".
>>
>>    
>>
>http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>>
>
>
>  
>


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to