Re: Dreaming On

From: 1Z <>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 10:26:46 -0700 (PDT)

On 03 Aug, 06:51, Rex Allen <> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Bruno Marchal<> wrote:
> > Rex proposes something like:
> > It is radical, and it is difficult to say if it explains anything. I
> > suspect the goal could be personal enlightnment instead of a search in
> > a communicable theory which should or could explain the observable and
> > non observable (but "feelable", like pain) phenomena.
> On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 2:19 AM, Brent Meeker<> wrote:
> >> The only thing we have direct access to is our conscious experience.
> >> Trying to explain the existence of this conscious experience in terms
> >> of what is experienced inevitably leads to vicious circularity.
> > If you explain the existence of a pain in your tooth by a cavity the experience may lead
> > to a dentist - and less pain in your experience.
> I am proposing, I suppose:
> So obviously it seems useful to postulate the existence of things like
> quarks and electrons, which we then use to make predictions about what
> will happen if we do this, that, or the other. However, I think there
> is good reason to believe that this only holds true in our own
> relatively well-behaved part of what is actually a vast experiential
> wilderness.

What good reason would that be? How do you experience things you
can't experience.

> Any proposal that has our consciousness as being "caused", whatever
> the causal mechanism, is open to the possibility that we are caused to
> experience something that is not reflective of the reality that
> produced the experience. Dreams, delusions, hallucinations,
> brains-in-vats, and computer simulations of brains all offer real or
> conceivable examples of scenarios where what is experienced might lead
> one astray in trying to determine the underlying nature of things.

Yes, but all those are more complex hypotheses than realism, and
so are deprecated by Occam's razor.

> However, I question the need to push the explanation down to a
> separate layer. So we are at the top of your ontological stack, I
> assume. And we look below us to see what supports us. But then we
> have to look below that level to see what supports it, and below that
> level to see what supports it, and so on. Infinite regress. Turtles
> all the way down.

Why do we have to look past the n-1th level to explain
what is happening on the Nth level?

> But instead why not look at our own experience, which is the only
> thing we know directly, as the foundation of the ontological stack.
> Everything that exists rests on the foundation of our conscious
> experience? In this view, the stack goes up for as far as our
> intellect can reach. And as our intellectual capacity expands, the
> our view of the existential landscape above us also expands.

WHat evidene do we have that anything at all is on level N+1 with
consciousness as its basis?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Thu Aug 06 2009 - 10:26:46 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:16 PST