Re: subjective reality

From: George Levy <glevy.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:35:02 -0700

Bruno Marchal wrote: .

> Lee Corbin wrote:
>
>> My friends and I (and probably Daniel Dennett and so on) believe
>> that people who demand a 1st person "account of the world" (e.g.
>> Chalmers) will never get anywhere.
>
>
> Actually, this is one of the main point where I differ from George
> Levy (OK George?), although I could make sense of it. The point is,
> and Dennett agrees on this, that, in cognitive *science*, we need to
> develop some third person discourse on the first person discourses.
> OK, strictly speaking the quantum and physical discourses appears at
> some first person (plural) level.
>
> Chalmers is not getting anywhere(*), ok. Perhaps we agree on this.
>
> (*) Using Everett to defend dualism! See the quite good explanation
> how Everett is deeply monist in the book:
> PRIMAS H., 1981, Chemistry, Quantum Mechanics and Reductionism,
> Springer-Verlag, Berlin (second, corrected edition : 1983)


Hi Bruno and Lee,
I would invert Dennett's point to increase its emphasis: "we need to
develop some first person discourses on the third person discourse." In
other words, I believe that the foundation is first person, and that
third person is a consequence of anthropically determined constraints
that we must share.
I have been quiet recently in part because of the sheer volume of this
list. As you know Bruno I am an extreme believer in first person. I have
acquired this position mainly by looking at two seemingly opposite
trends in science. Scientific theories have become less and less
anthropocentric removing the earth and man as the center of the
universe. (Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Michelson-Morley). The Earth
does not occupy a priviledged position. There is no Ether. There is no
absolute. Paradoxically, the observer has acquired greater importance
through the work (Relativity Theory, Quantum Theory with the MWI,
Shannon's communication theory). Relativity of the observer seems to be
pervasive, not just with regards "Relativity Theory" but also with
regards Quantum Theroy. It is not a coincidence that Everett called his
paper "Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics." Everything is
relative to the observer. So why not go all the way.... and take the
first person as the base. This approach tackles the Mind-Body problem
up-front rather than after the fact. "I" becomes fundamental: the
starting assumption as well as an observable fact. "I" exists in the
Plenitude and is constrained to see a slice of the Plenitude - the world
it sees - by Anthropic constraints. Thus "I" and the world it sees share
the same structure and logic whatever that logic may be. There are
probably more than one I's/worlds/logics that satisfy this requirement.
Bruno, you are the expert in logic. Subjective reality is fundamental.
Objective reality arises because we share the same "I" and therefore the
same world (slice view of the plenitude).

George
Received on Wed Aug 10 2005 - 19:36:51 PDT