> As I said in the first post: aspect 1 is descriptions of an underlying 
> reality.  aspect 2 is also a set of descriptions, but merely of 
> generalisations/abstractions of the appearances in an observer made of . Both 
> aspects are equally empirically supported. You can't give either aspect 
> priority-ownership of the evidence.

And why, specifically, would something like Bohmian mechanics fail to qualify 
as "descriptions of an underlying reality"? is it because it doesn't say 
anything about first-person qualia, or is it for some other reason? What if we 
had a theory along the lines of Bohmian mechanics, and combined that with 
"psychophysical laws" of the type Chalmers postulates, laws which define a 
mapping between configurations of physical entities (described in mathematical, 
third-person terms) and specific qualia--would *that* qualify as what you mean 
by "aspect 1"?
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 

Reply via email to