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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
