Re: subjective reality

From: <kurtleegod.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 14:13:15 -0400

 Hi George,

  I see your point. Brandon Carter expressed recently the same idea, it
seams, when noting that Quantum Mechanics
  suggests to him that "objective reality is NOT a realistic objective".
Perhaps, but that hardly implies that "subjective
  reality" is any more realistic as an scientific objective, I am
afraid! If the "I" maps the world than it is also likely to map
  the quantum quandary, don't you think? Subjectivity and mentality are
surely much bigger scientific problems
 than all of the paradoxes of QM and GR can even hope to compare!

  I also have some trouble with the idea that we "share an I", as you
put it, as I don't know to what extent
  I do share mine with anyone! My notion is, instead, that the "I" is
exactly what we DO NOT SHARE, what makes us different,
  while Reality is all the rest: what we DO share in a very obvious
sense. Otherwise, why would we disagree? Do we slice
 the Plenitude in parallel?

  I also do not join you and Bruno in that eagerness for a
"self-centered science" as the solution to everything.
  Maybe it is an unfair comparison but isn't that, the demand for a
science that caters to ones believes and feelings,
  what the Kansas Board of "Education" is about to enshrine in its
classrooms with the whole notion of parity between
  Evolution and "Intelligent Design"? Don't tax payers have the right to
science that caters to their beliefs and biases,
  a school that, instead of teaching their children, reinforces their
conviction that they already know what's true?

 Please tell me I am wrong.

 Only half joking,

 Godfrey Kurtz
 (New Brunswick, NJ)

 -----Original Message-----
 From: George Levy <glevy.domain.name.hidden>
 ...

 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


________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and
industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
Received on Thu Aug 11 2005 - 14:15:20 PDT