Jesse Mazer wrote:
>> 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"?
Good question.

YES - Bohmian/Stappian/Bohrian/Penrosian/any old quantum mechanics 
flavour all fail to predict an observer. Brilliantly predictive OF 
observations (appearances) - but that's it. */Dual aspect science 
predicts that failure. /*

RE: Chalmers 'postulates' ('law of organisational invariance' etc)
What you are talking about is basically the same thing as 'neural 
correlates of consciousness'. Correlating reports of P-consciousness 
with neural activity is descriptive: WHAT. Not explanatory: WHY? It is 
based on the "Mind Brain Identity" theorem...yet another tedious 
cultural agreement masquerading as science that says: "to describe the 
brain is to describe the mind". The dressing up with 'psychophysical' 
label changes nothing. There is no prediction here. There is merely 
correlation based on the same kind of prescriptive deployment of a new 
self-fulfilling 'received view'. I hope you can see this.

'Postulates' are just empty declarations. If they fail to make any 
predictions they are just a lot of conventions - folk lore - just as bad 
as any ascription to QM as ontological. If postulates are contrived to 
fit expectations then they are tautologies (in exactly the same way that 
computer 'science' computer programs are self-fulfilling tautologies). 
This process merely creates a CORRELATE of the observation, not a LAW OF 

A real theory would literally predict /a-priori /that our brains should 
exist and have the structure they have, that it will be 'like something' 
to be the material involved. (It will also be able to make a 
scientifically justified statement about the P-cosnciousness of a rock, 
a computer and an elephant.) It will predict that: There will be 
neurons, assembled into layers and columns like SUCH, that their shape 
shall be THIS. That membranes of THAT structure shall be found and shall 
be be penetrated by  ion channels THUS; That the soma shall be of this 
morphogy, and the ion channels shall be of these types and have surface 
densities thus...that the composition of the membrane shall be an 
ordered but dynamic fluid with lipid rafts doing THIS in THESE cells to 
make RED in V4 of the occipital. and so on...

Further more, a complete <aspect 1> will result in F=MA as an emergent 
a-priori property of reality, calculated as a statistic of the monism. 
It would also predict, a-priori, the gravitational constant as an 
<aspect-1> statistic, along with the speed of light C  and so on. In 
that way the <aspect 1> and <aspect 2> shall mesh, perfectly, both 
supported by the empirical evidence (a) by predicting an observer 
(structured as per the above) and (b) that the observer shall construct 
the law F=MA in the appropriate non-relativistic context of appearances.

<aspect 1> is NOT underling reality, but a description of it. There may 
be 100 complete, consistent sets, all of which work as well as each 
other. We must live with that potential ambiguity. There's no 
fundamental reason why we are ever entitled to a unique solution to 
<aspect 1>. But it may turn out that there can only be one. We'll never 
know unless we let ourselves look, will we??

<aspect 2> is NOT underling reality, but a description of its 
appearances to an observer inside a reality described structurally as 
<aspect 1>. 100 different life-forms, as scientists/observers all over 
the universe, may all concoct 100 totally different sets of 'laws of 
nature', each  one just as predictive of the natural world, none of 
which are 'right' , but all are 'predictive' to each life-form. They all 
are empirically verified by 100 very different P-consciousnesses of each 
species of scientist....but they /all predict the same outcome for a 
given experiment/. Human-centric 'laws of nature' are an illusion. 
<aspect 2> 'Laws of Nature' are filtered through the P-cosnciousness of 
the observer and verified on that basis! We need to 'get over ourselves' 
yet again, in another round of 'copernican decentralisation' : only this 
time in respect of our phenomenal lives and the laws we concoct..

Are we there yet?

Science is really messed up. The 'XYZ interpretation' is a peculiar 
cover welded over knowledge, erected by physicists. At the same time 
neuroscientists have their own cover welded over their own explanatory 
failure: called the Mind-Brain Identity Theorem. The two disciplines 
rarely meet on the same ground. Each has the answer to the other's 
problem. The system perpetuates. No progress is made. Both operate in 
this regime of 'SINGLE ASPECT SCIENCE' for no good reason. This is the 
way the 'hard problem' remains hard.

I drew this state of affairs as a diagram in my paper that has been out 
there for 2 years. I empirically observe scientists and I report what 
they do. What they (WE - I am enrolled this mess too) do is bizarre. The 
upgrade from SAS to DAS alters not one single <aspect 2> law. Despite 
this we still do nothing...

This thread has revealed the 'Cellular Automata' metaphor as perhaps a 
very useful way to describe DAS. I must work on this a bit more. :-)

colin hales

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