h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Right. I'll try and hold out to the end this time...

Let me know when you get there ... it is worth it.

Right...
*rubs hands together and hopes she can do this quickly without w*rk getting in the way*

Right...
*rubs hands together and hopes she can do this quickly without w*rk getting in the way*

Phew!

Nope, still don't understand it. Not really. Well, kinda. But not really.

It's basically an answer to the question, do we have complete knowledge of our internal states? The answer suggested by the dialogue, and your own professed uncertainty about what you want, is "no".

So you can be wrong about whether you believe a book is red (or an article is read) ... at least at the statement level. Perhaps the question to ask is, at which layer of mental function does the dislocation occur?

It's hard work. I've thought about that for years- though from a slightly different angle- since I was a little girl. I asked myself, 'What if my eyesight was wrong? What if I had been taught that that object was green- say, grass- and I always called it that. But what if my eyes were wrong and actually saw yellow, but I had been taught to call it green? What is right? Is the grass green or yellow?'

The problem of qualia. Yep. Incidentally, possible picture of God -- the qualia (subjective states) of the universe? The universe certainly has qualia, because it contains me, and I do!

The universe exists because it exists in my mind?

Not exactly, although that's possible ... no, the universe is conscious because I am conscious and the universe contains me. It's entirely possible that the universe is conscious in a much more complex way, of course ....

The universe is concious beacause I am concious. Why does the universe have to be concious? Isn't it possible that it merely exists so that concious beings have somewhere to 'be'?

Well, it's possible that it exists only for that reason, of course. Or it's possible it just happens to exist and qualia are connected to "intelligent" states. But either way, just as I contain a head and consider "myself" conscious entirely because of that head, which is itself conscious, thus the universe contains me and therefore is also conscious. It's sophistry, of course, but it does illustrate an interesting possibility: if other things than humans can have conscious states, what is the limitation on what can and what can't?

Oop.

Lunchtime.

Indeed. Which then can brings up so many more arguments about what is concious, how we should treat them etc etc. Lunch is definitely a good idea...

Speak to you soon,

VIPx

Incidentally, how would you characterise rules? For example, "Love God above all things and love your neighbour as you love yourself" could be regarded as rigid rules (in that they apply to any situation), yet very few people do. I feel that there is a perception of rules as being more ruley if you have to obey a large number of apparently arbitrary constraints with no obvious framework which suggests the reason for the rule. In other words, is it the apparent arbitrariness of rules which are evoked by "rigid rules", rather than their rigidity?

Interesting parallel philosophical point: do you believe in evolution? Possibly. But isn't it all particle physics anyway? So why is there a theory of evolution?

Hmm. I do believe in evolution but only because that has the strongest case for it at the moment. I don't really care though. It's not something I think about much. God created us, but I don't really mind how!

They are rules, I agree. I try and obey them like rules. They don't say- 'when in this situation, do this.' which I think is what people mean or want from rules. It involves thinking much more, and that can be difficult. It also means you can be wrong, whereas rules refine right and wrong.

The point was, really, that if you believe in physics then, in a sense, evolution is irrelevant.

I think the concrete and immutable rules are the ones about love and all the other rules (thou shalt not kill, if the mildew stays over seven days then it is a spreading mildew and the house must be pulled down et al.) are corrolaries and good advice -- but you must never lose sight of their origin, just as the origin of evolution -- the nature of chemistry, and so on -- must always be recalled, lest a drastic loss of perspective befall us.

I see. Rules have their place, but you must always take into account where they have come from, and check they still apply. 'Always drive on the left'... except when not in the UK!

Something like that, yes!

What do you think?

Sounds like the way rules should be always made! A bit difficult to prove in court, but I like that way of thinking! It makes sense.

All I can say about courts is: they've not caught me yet.

[runs off, listening for bloodhounds]