Bruno, Lee:
>Le 10-mai-05, à 06:33, Lee Corbin a écrit :
>
>
>>Why not instead adopt the scientific model? That is, that
>>we are three-dimensional creatures ensconced in a world
>>governed by the laws of physics, or, what I'll call the
>>"atoms and processes" model.
>
>Because we don't need that hypothesis.
>That's nice because that hypothesis entails three big unsolved problems:
> - what is matter (particles, processes, ...) and where does matter come
>from ?
>- what is mind ?
>- how are they related ?
>No doubt that physics gives an admirable compact description of our
>neighborhood. But it puts the data "mind" under the rug. What could be an
>admirable methodological simplification is now accepted like a religion. I
>would not call it a scientific model.
>Of course in scientific communication, we cannot use first person
>evidences, but it is a category error to derive from that sound
>interdiction that we cannot make third person scientific theories *about*
>first person phenomena.
OK, it would be wonderful if your above three questions could be answered by
appealing only to maths or logic (and I hope to understand your thesis one
day, Bruno). However, does there *have* to be some deeper explanation? For
example, is it logically impossible that the universe consists, say, of tiny
billiard balls which follow the rules of Newtonian mechanics, with
consciousness being an emergent phenomenon when these billiard balls are in
a particular configuration?
>>About observer-moments, I would
>>say what LaPlace answered to Napoleon about a deity:
>>"I have no need of that hypothesis".
>
>But you cannot say they does not exist. You would be lying to yourself. You
>are living just one of them right now.
>Of course when I say I don't need the hypothesis of "the laws of physics" I
>am anticipating the successful derivation of QM from arithmetical observer
>moment. It seems to me I got enough to at least be doubting we need in
>principle the laws of physics, and the comp-physics I did derived from the
>computationalist hypothesis, although it cannot yet be considered as a real
>competitor of QM right now, it is in advance, right now, by putting light
>on the three questions above, as I will try to make clear without technics
>asap (on both list).
>
>Bruno
>
>http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
I agree with Bruno about observer-moments. Lee, I'll PayPal you $50 if you
can convince me that you can doubt that you are experiencing an
observer-moment!
--Stathis Papaioannou
_________________________________________________________________
REALESTATE: biggest buy/rent/share listings
http://ninemsn.realestate.com.au
Received on Tue May 10 2005 - 22:51:58 PDT