> That's what I thought he said.  But I see no reason to suppose a UD is
> running, much less running without physics.  We don't know of any
> computation that occurs immaterially.

All computation occurs materially and immaterially. An abacus doesn't
count itself. You ultimately have to have a conscious interpreter to
signify any particular text as quantitatively meaningful. Unplug all
monitors from all computers and what do you have left? Expensive

Why not just see perception as both local-solipsistic and generic-
universal? Isn't that exactly what it seems to be - a phenomena which
both seamlessly integrates psychological experience and physical
existence together in some contexts and clearly distinguishes between
them in others? If that's the case, then why not see that principle of
a meta-dualism which is a continuum between a dualism and two monisms
(each representing each other as the opposite of themselves) as the
principle governing all phenomena, all the way up and down the

If you can't trust perception, then why do you suppose that you can
trust your perception that you can't trust perception?

If you can't trust physics then how do you explain the fact that
physical entities (bullets, psychoactive molecules) affect
consciousness but not the other way around?

If you trust both perception and physics then all you have to do is
identify the relationship between them as the most likely aspect to be
distorted by both perception and physics, and the most defining of our
subjective condition as a particular subjective phenomenon.

Yes, perception can be tricked and exposed as a limited neurological
phenomenon, however under most circumstances, our perception somehow
seems to do quite an admirable job of passing on to us precise
meanings and high quality information from both straightforward
physical sources and more mysterious and creative psychological
sources. The integrity of that information, as it passes through
countless neurological transductions - from optical-sonic correlations
to gestalt memory associations, is what perception is; not just the
final neurological rattlings, it's the whole thing. Sense is
universal. Not human sense of course. Not physical sense, and not
psychological sense, but the sense period, common and uncommon, is the
thread that binds it all together. Whether it's the string of String
theory, or a strand of DNA, or a string of alphanumeric characters, a
conversation thread, etc. it's all about pattern and sense.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to