> As I said in the first post: aspect 1 is descriptions of an underlying reality. aspect 2 is also a set of descriptions, but merely of generalisations/abstractions of the appearances in an observer made of . Both aspects are equally empirically supported. You can't give either aspect priority-ownership of the evidence.
And why, specifically, would something like Bohmian mechanics fail to qualify as "descriptions of an underlying reality"? is it because it doesn't say anything about first-person qualia, or is it for some other reason? What if we had a theory along the lines of Bohmian mechanics, and combined that with "psychophysical laws" of the type Chalmers postulates, laws which define a mapping between configurations of physical entities (described in mathematical, third-person terms) and specific qualia--would *that* qualify as what you mean by "aspect 1"?
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 Sun Oct 12 2008 - 23:45:05 PDT