On 06 May 2010, at 04:13, Rex Allen wrote:
What is belief except another aspect of conscious experience?
Wellllllllll. I am trying to fit everything that I know into a single
consistent, coherent framework.
Maybe belief is all that exists? Fundamental and uncaused...
It makes no sense, assuming DM. You may try to say that, for example,
numbers does not exist, and only believe in number exist, like the
believe in the number one, the believe in the number two, etc. But
this will be ad hoc, and for saying "yes" genuinely qua computation (=
without praying for more than Arithmetical truth), somehow you will
have to accept for true some of those belief in numbers.
And if you believe that the diophantine x^2 + y^2 = z^2 admits
infinitely many solutions, and that 2x^2 = y^2 has none (except the x
= y = 0), then you are an arithmetical realist (I have never met a non
arithmetical realist except among philosophers, especially when
I can only work with what I know about my own experiences. But,
thanks to Salvia Divinorum, I have some idea of what it's like to both
believe really strange things, and to experience really strange
You can do statistical statitistics on reports of experience, but
personal experience, even when theorizing on "personal experience
(which we can do, with different definition of persons, etc.) are of
no use in the communication (as opposed to the personal investigations).
By definition, a scientific realist believes in the actual existence
of electrons and of the attribute of spin.
Hmm... I am not sure. I would say a naive physicalist realist believes
that. I prefer to define realism before the choice of what we can be
I am an arithmetical realist. This means only that I believe that the
truth of "17 is prime" is not a function of points in space time
structures. On the contrary, I can figure out ideas like space and
time thanks to my belief in proposition like "14 is not prime".
If he didn't, he wouldn't
be a scientific realist. He might instead be a structural realist.
You talk like if scientific = physicalist. I don't follow you here.
So if a physical law is deterministic then under it's influence Event
A will "cause" Result X 100% of the time.
Only in the third person description. In the first person description
like in the iterated self-duplication W M, the personal outcome will
be for most persons fifty fifty W or M.
Why does Event A always lead to Result X? Because that's the law.
There is no deeper reason.
There is one. Where does the law come from?
If a physical law is indeterministic,
If that happens I will follow Einstein in becoming a plumber.
As if we could do otherwise. If we assume physicalism, then our
constituent particles are doing all the work. Given the universe's
initial conditions and causal laws (which may be probabilistic), they
could behave other than they do. In this view, the emotion we feel
would seem to be an irrelevant non-causal side-effect at best. Maybe
even an illusion?
It is a difficulty of physicalism indeed. Not of mechanism, and most
physicalist relies on the mechanist theory of mind through the notion
of physical implementation of computation. This is quite awkward to
define, and if uda is valid, just impossible. Emotions and persons are
not illusion, the physical neither, but both emerge epistemologically,
or more simply, can be explained from the internal numbers views of
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
For more options, visit this group at