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 destroyed. [Roger Clough], [[email protected]] 11/17/2012 "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 explanation. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
