Brain, Behaviour and Extensionalism

NMF nm_fournier at ns.sympatico.ca
Fri Apr 9 20:40:25 EST 2004


> In particular, the universe doesn't need our perceptions nor our
> intelligence to exist.

 How do you know that for certain?  We have no basis or point of reference
to measure this secondary hypothesis.  Even the measurable laws of physics,
that we use to deem a glimpse into nature and construct of the universe, may
in fact be artifacts of the human brain.  Moreover, what we may perceive as
even the most intrinsic features of our universe could in fact be a
consequence of how the brain is organized.  Until we change the manner in of
brain organization,  then what remains constant in perceptual frame may be
consider as intrinsic features of the universe while those that do not may
in fact not be a fundamental process of the universe.  (Even this statement
has a circularity to it).

With respect to your comment. Some have argued, especially physicist John
Wheeler, that the only reason for the universe to exist was to support the
emergence of the "conscious observer". In this case, the existence of a mind
at a later stage of the cosmic evolution would have a retrograde effect
extending all the way back to the very creation of the universe.

Wheeler (1977),
                    Is the very mechanism for the universe to come into
being meaningless or
                    unworkable or both unless the universe is guaranteed to
produce life,
                    consciousness, and observership somewhere and for some
little time in its
                    history-to-be?


(I'm just playing devils advocate with you suggesting that we should be
careful about considering what are fundamental processes, properties, and
constants of our universe)





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list