Hi Bruno Marchal My understanding is that qualia are subjective or 1-view, while the realm of science is completely objective (3-view).
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/6/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen ----- Receiving the following content ----- From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-06, 08:49:43 Subject: Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality On 05 Nov 2012, at 20:03, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi meekerdb > > Love is a qualia and science cannot touch qualia. Science can touch everything. And assuming comp science can explain why qualia are not scientific or communicable. they still remain real phenomena on which science can say something, even if negative. Bruno > > > Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net > 11/5/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > ----- Receiving the following content ----- > From: meekerdb > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-11-03, 21:28:12 > Subject: Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality > > > On 11/3/2012 6:47 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > > > > : Is there something that I could know to be the case, and which is > not expressed by a proposition that could be part of some scientific > theory?" > > > Yes . "I love my mother" is some knowledge that I know , and is not > part of a scientific theory. > > > But could it be is the question. There could be a scientific theory > that Alberto Corona loves his mother and you could know the theory. > > > > We know reality because we live in the reality, We do not > approximate reality by theories. We directly know reality because we > live within it. Our primary knowledge is intuitive, historic, > direct.. It is _the_ reality. > > > A theory is a second class of knowledge about a model that > approximate reality, maybe upto a point of an isomorphism with some- > part-of reality, but certainly, not an isomorphism that embraces the > whole reality, because we could never know if we have modelized the > entire reality, nether if this modelization is accurate. > > > The legitimate usage of the models is to refine this intuitive > knowledge. But at the worst, a model can negate our direct > knowledge and try to create an alternative reality. In this case the > theorist reclaim the model as the reality. Thus the > theorist .reclaim a complete knowledge of reality. In this case the > theorist is outside of science, even if it is within the science > industry, and becomes a sort of gnostic preacher > > > Yes, a model that includes everything is impossible (and not even > useful), but it might still be that each thing you know is part of > some model. > > -- > 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 > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en > . > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
