On 06 May 2010, at 04:13, Rex Allen wrote:
What is belief except another aspect of conscious experience?
OK.
Wellllllllll. I am trying to fit everything that I know into a single consistent, coherent framework.
Me too.
Maybe belief is all that exists? Fundamental and uncaused...
It makes no sense, assuming DM. You may try to say that, for example, numbers does not exist, and only believe in number exist, like the believe in the number one, the believe in the number two, etc. But this will be ad hoc, and for saying "yes" genuinely qua computation (= without praying for more than Arithmetical truth), somehow you will have to accept for true some of those belief in numbers.
And if you believe that the diophantine x^2 + y^2 = z^2 admits infinitely many solutions, and that 2x^2 = y^2 has none (except the x = y = 0), then you are an arithmetical realist (I have never met a non arithmetical realist except among philosophers, especially when understanding UDA).
I can only work with what I know about my own experiences. But, thanks to Salvia Divinorum, I have some idea of what it's like to both believe really strange things, and to experience really strange things.
You can do statistical statitistics on reports of experience, but personal experience, even when theorizing on "personal experience (which we can do, with different definition of persons, etc.) are of no use in the communication (as opposed to the personal investigations).
By definition, a scientific realist believes in the actual existence of electrons and of the attribute of spin.
Hmm... I am not sure. I would say a naive physicalist realist believes that. I prefer to define realism before the choice of what we can be realist on.
I am an arithmetical realist. This means only that I believe that the truth of "17 is prime" is not a function of points in space time structures. On the contrary, I can figure out ideas like space and time thanks to my belief in proposition like "14 is not prime".
If he didn't, he wouldn't be a scientific realist. He might instead be a structural realist.
You talk like if scientific = physicalist. I don't follow you here.
So if a physical law is deterministic then under it's influence Event A will "cause" Result X 100% of the time.
Only in the third person description. In the first person description like in the iterated self-duplication W M, the personal outcome will be for most persons fifty fifty W or M.
Why does Event A always lead to Result X? Because that's the law. There is no deeper reason.
There is one. Where does the law come from?
If a physical law is indeterministic,
If that happens I will follow Einstein in becoming a plumber.
As if we could do otherwise. If we assume physicalism, then our constituent particles are doing all the work. Given the universe's initial conditions and causal laws (which may be probabilistic), they could behave other than they do. In this view, the emotion we feel would seem to be an irrelevant non-causal side-effect at best. Maybe even an illusion?
It is a difficulty of physicalism indeed. Not of mechanism, and most physicalist relies on the mechanist theory of mind through the notion of physical implementation of computation. This is quite awkward to define, and if uda is valid, just impossible. Emotions and persons are not illusion, the physical neither, but both emerge epistemologically, or more simply, can be explained from the internal numbers views of arithmetical truth.
Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
