Hi Stephen P. King 

Now I see that there is a remote hint of what you say in Leibniz's 
metaphysics. Each monad perceives only the phenomenol world,
the world from his own perspective. The actual object is only
truly perceived if "perceived" by all perceivers.

But that does create the object, the actual object always was, as
it is itself a monad, and they can be neither created nor

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-11-17, 06:41:52
Subject: Re: the "God" hypothesis

On 11/17/2012 6:33 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Bruno Marchal 

My concept of the infinite regress problem
is the one that pops up in materialistic theories of
perception. Is there a homunculus in the brain to
experience what the eye sees? And if so, does the homunculus
have a homunculus inside him to interpret that etc. etc, etc.

Dennent wrote a whole book or a lot at least
on that issue without coming up with a sensible solution
other than to say that it just happens that there is no infinite
regress because there cannot be one. 

It's similar to Aristotle's "First Cause" doctine.

Dear Roger,

    We can solve the homunculus problem by consideration that consciousness 
requires resources to occur. For example, the 1st homunculus uses 1/2 the 
resource available, the next uses 1/4, the next uses 1/8, ... This converges to 
1 unit of resource, no? Of course this assumes that there are homunculi ... 
Infinite regresses are only a problem if they are used to avoid a difficult 



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