On 9/3/2011 8:32 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sep 3, 8:59 am, Stathis Papaioannou<stath...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi<use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote:
I do not understand you. It is not me, it is you who are talking about
souls. I have just asked you to explain the phenomenon that I observe and
you have not done it yet.
Well, either the atoms got into the book by following the rules of
physics or they got there by magic. What other options are there? This
does not mean that the rules of physics are all known, all
deterministic or all computable; but whatever they are, the atoms in
the universe bounce around according to them and end up in books,
stars and people.
Whatever physical phenomena are observed to be doing, the laws of
physics are extended to allow for. Quantum mechanics is magic, until
physicists call it physics. It's upside down to imagine that our
observations need to fit into our existing rule book, especially when
those observations (like first person singular subjectivity, free
will, qualia, feeling, awareness, perception, etc) both cannot be
denied and cannot be explained within the existing rules.
If I were more of a materialist, I would say that the odds that we
happen to be living in the one era of all of history when our
knowledge of physics coincides with objective truth are astronomically
unlikely and radically anthropocentric. Given our collective history
of willingness to cling to irrational superstition and shortsighted or
premature scientific theory, I see no reason to consider our
contemporary chapter of science any more sacrosanct than that of
centuries past. History has shown that we have always been completely
wrong about the universe. Until our explanation of the universe
accounts fully for all subjective and objective phenomena in their
native presentations, it seems obvious that we have a long long way to
go. Right now, particle physics accounts for human experience about as
much as the Holy Trinity accounts for quarks.
I generally agree that there may be new evidence to be discovered and theories to be
invented, and it's possible they may have some bearing on consciousness. And I agree that
particle physics doesn't directly account for human experience - although it accounts for
chemistry, which accounts for biology, which accounts for evolution, which accounts for
some aspects of human and animal experience. And the Standard Model of particle physics
is a good theory that has made some highly accurate predictions and passed many empirical
tests. Your theory of sensorimotive experience as an involuted continuum of insistence
and existence in an inertial frame of perceputal relativity on the other hand doesn't
predict anything testable and seems to consist of abuse of terminology invented ad hoc for
the purpose. You attack materialism like the Creationist attack evolution. You just
point to stuff and say, "See you can't explain that!....Oh you did. Well then you can't
explain that!" as though a gap in the materialist world model proves that materialism
can't be right. The Catholic Church has been playing that game for centuries but their
playing field gets smaller every year.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at