> 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 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to