I respectfully submit that not only is the structure of the media unknown, but that the constituency of the media is also unknown.Sherlock said:The fundamental constituent of the universe is waves in media of unknown structure.
I respectfully submit that this overt assumption might impede or prevent discovery of the true fundamental constituent of the universe.Sherlock said:Physical science doesn't tacitly assume that consciousness corresponds to brain activity, it overtly assumes it. Consciousness = brain activity.
I don't think so. Occam's advice picks the simpler of two theories which offer explanations for the same phenomena. If only one of the theories offers an explanation, then that one should be chosen regardless of its complexity. Certainly you would agree that modern physics is more complex than classical theory, would you not?Sherlock said:I think Occam would have stopped you at (and disallowed) the primordial knower = ability to know thing.
For those who do not rule solipsism out without giving it serious consideration.Sherlock said:No problem for who?
Yes. I'm sure it sounds that way. But the terminology I used is the vernacular that is most easily understood in an introductory discussion of these ideas. Some of the terms, like 'concept', 'knowing', 'consciousness', 'will', 'information', and 'knowledge' are not scale-specific unless you insist on relating them exclusively to brain activity. As I have suggested elsewhere, my proposal can be couched in terms of Gregg Rosenberg's definition and development of the notion of "Natural Individuals". I also suspect that the ideas could be formalized in mathematical structures. Neither of these approaches would be anthropomorphic or scale-specific, but, IMHO, both would be less accessible to readers of this forum -- not to mention the fact that I have not developed the ideas using either approach. If you open your mind just a little more as you consider these ideas, I'm sure you can get past the anthropic trap.Sherlock said:Your construction is very ... anthropic. You've abstracted from too high a level of complexity. The vocabulary that you're applying is scale-specific. You want something more general. A way of talking about nature that transcends all scales and is therefore applicable to any scale. Then Occam will not be offended (unless of course you unnecessarily complicate things using the more fundamental terms.
Thanks for your thoughts, Sherlock.