On 3/9/2013 7:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Mar 2013, at 21:47, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/8/2013 2:27 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Mar 2013, at 05:37, Terren Suydam wrote:
Ah. That's above my pay grade unfortunately. But I don't think our
immediate failure to solve that problem dooms the idea that a cat's
experience of the world is explainable in terms of mechanism.
Conversely, even if we did solve it, there would still be doubts.
For the time being, comp remains for me the most fruitful
assumption about reality, such as it is. It assumes so little and
opens up such incredible vistas.
And that comp leads to problems is what makes it interesting. I use
comp like the drunk man who looks for his key under the lamp, as
elsewhere he knows he will not find it.
Comp is only a lamp.
It shows that the somber unknown is bigger than what some might
think at first sight.
What about building more lamps?
You take the analogy too much seriously, and not in the intended sense.
I suppose so. I thought that you would respond that way... I am
trying to make the point that the problem should not be considered from
only one theoretical basis. Otherwise the problem might be just an
artifact of the theory... ;-)
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.