On 7/21/2012 5:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
OK. And it is here that "conventional physics" has a problem, for to relate observations with perceptions they rely on the physical supervenience thesis, which does no more work when comp is assumed.

 It is only a problem in that the explanation is incomplet

Not at all. Step 8 makes clear the explanation is *inconsistent* with the weak Occam razor. It makes matter into a god of the gap, actually into an aristotelian God having no job. It is an epinoumenon, like "invisible horses".

Physics takes the perception as given and doesn't (yet) try to explain how this perception is realized by the physics of a brain - or even whether it can be.  It just takes the perceptions as data.

+ a bet that such data can be explained in a theory, but this used implicitly, all the time, the physical supervenience thesis. This can no more work with comp, as shown explicitly by UDA-8. We can come back on this if you missed something there.



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