Le 28-déc.-06, à 21:54, Brent Meeker a écrit : (to Jef)
> I think "objective" should just be understood as denoting subjective
> agreement from different viewpoints.
Curiosuly enough perhaps I could agree if you were saying "physically
objective" can be understood as denoting subjective agreement.
But frankly I do not believe that 17 is prime depends on any agreement
between different viewpoints (but the definition of 17 and prime of
course).
But about physics I agree. And I know that you know how Vic Stenger
extracts a big deal of physics from invariance for change of
referential systems.
> I'd say experience is always "direct", an adjective which really adds
> nothing. An experience just is. If it has to be interpreted *then*
> you've fallen into an infinite regress: who experiences the
> interpretation.
I can understand why 1-experience seems direct, but I am not sure this
really make sense. As I said to Jef, infinite regression in computer
science can be solved.
> To call it an illusion goes too far. I'd say the self is a model or
> an abstract construct - but it models something, it has predictive
> power. If you start to call things like that "illusions" then
> everything is an illusion and the word has lost its meaning.
OK.
Bruno
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.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Fri Dec 29 2006 - 10:12:41 PST