> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
