On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 8:23 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> >>> And do you believe this sequence will persist in >>> producing orderly and consistent experiences? >> >> I do believe that. BUT...why do I believe it? Well, ultimately, >> there is no reason I believe it. I just do. > > Then why don't you believe that a physical universe is a good explanatory > model for it? Or do you believe that and you're just playing at not > believing it? It seems like I've explained my position on this before: "because I don't see what introducing the physical world as something prior to and independent of consciousness buys us in our attempts to explain our orderly conscious experiences. If it is intended to explain the order and consistency of our experiences, then what explains the physical world's order and consistency? It seems to me that we've just changed the question, not answered it. And in the process introduced the additional question of how consciousness arises from matter." Kant was on the right track generally I think. If you drop the noumena. At least that's the description of the experience of my thought processes on this topic. >> I would expect an honest physicalist to say that he believed it >> because, given the initial conditions of the universe plus the >> causal laws of physics as applied over ~13.7 billion years, it >> could not be otherwise. > > That's a particular model. It's not why one "believes" the model. Actually > an honest physicist or engineer never *believes* a model - he entertains it, > he uses it, he considers it. He prefers one to another because it predicts > more of his experience or is more accurate in those predictions. He only > believes it in the practical sense that if acting he will act as if it's > true. I'm fine with that as a practical guide to life and ramjet design. However, surely there must be some fact of the matter as to what exists and how things really are. And surely you have some belief about that. In fact, as I recall, you said that you believe that a physical world exists and that it is indeterministic. You often return to this "usefulness" point...but, in these discussions at least, I'm not really interested in engineering principles and guidelines. The question isn't what's useful. The question is what's true...and more specifically, what do you believe is true, and why. > But I'm not sure where that leaves you. You started with the Boltzmann > Brain argument that our thoughts are probably mistaken. But that "probably" > depended on a certain model universes and how they work. And it implied > that having thoughts is already extremely improbable. So if you have > thoughts - and you must since you take consciousness as fundamental - then > that already implies something about the world, i.e. it is not timeless > since thoughts have duration. So if you don't adopt solipism, if you assume > there is some world outside the flow of your thoughts to which they refer, > then a model of that world needs to include time, both duration and > direction. Just like there is no "red" in the world (in the sense that I experience it), there is no "time" in the world (in the sense that I experience it). Time is like red. Both only exist as aspects of experience. The world is all surface, all appearance. Like a movie. No depth. >> I would expect an honest physicalist to say that he believed it >> because, given the initial conditions of the universe plus the >> causal laws of physics as applied over ~13.7 billion years, it >> could not be otherwise. >> >> He has no *choice* except to believe it. To not believe it would >> require different initial conditions, or different causal laws. > > > I thought you were not believing it because there were no initial conditions > or causal laws or universe. It's all what a physicalist would call an > illusion - i.e. a seemingly coherent series of experiences that do not refer > to anything but just are. But then you seem to switch viewpoints and want > to use the consistency of a solipist know-nothing position to argue about > which universes might exist?? I'm not switching positions, I'm saying that the "honest physicalist" should believe that his beliefs are determined only by the initial conditions and causal laws of the universe. The two paragraphs went together. The second was a continuation of the first. You treated them separately. Of course, I also believe that I have no choice about my beliefs. But I don't attribute this lack of choice to initial conditions plus causal laws. I don't attribute it to anything. There is no process or mechanism that gave rise to my beliefs. They just exist as aspects of my conscious experience. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.