Brain, Behaviour and Extensionalism

Glen M. Sizemore gmsizemore2 at
Sat Apr 10 06:53:58 EST 2004

It's a version of the Anthropic Principle.

"NMF" <nm_fournier at> wrote in message
news:AQJdc.16485$BF2.1303079 at
> > 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
> that we use to deem a glimpse into nature and construct of the universe,
> in fact be artifacts of the human brain.  Moreover, what we may perceive
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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