Sorry Bruno, no disrespect, I meant to type "Hi Bruno". George George Levy wrote:
> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
