.
note re godel: AR: Two aspecs re godel 1. i know its true before i knew there was a higer system 2. only in retrospect, but even then why say it is true in level one?! answer: bec brain is beyond the infinite max
infinite amount of levels and brain knows more, or NY says is finite, and brain is below the max.
Explnation: A bran n hav an incorrec tintuition, or correct ofr older crcumstances etc, but here were are talking f a mathematically-correct intuition, where given a set of theorems, a brain intuit the truth of an atheorm whih can only be proved in a higher level theory. so if th brain nows the trut due to its wriing t oknow mathemaical truth, then how is the wiring possible since it should reflect logic? So it must hve acess to logic at a higher level.
Godel claimed tha tther eis an infinite series of systems each more complex than the prebious, so the brina has something beyond tha tinfinity, but may as NY says it can be finite, just that the brain can't figure them alout an thinks it is infinite, etc. But the brain seems t hae access to higher evel than
......
TEXT of survey, unedited version
A) The color-test (for those not color-blind): please choose the option which is closest to your opinion (without quibbling too much on the phraseology or details etc):
When light of 700nm wavelength enters your eye (ie you see a 'red-colored' object):
type 1: the 'red' is in the object (eg a molecule or etc) or possibly in the photons, it is physical, nothing very mysterious;
type 2: the 'red' is a sensation in a brain; a brain is the most complexly-interconnected entity, with sophisticated processess not present perhaps in any other venue, eg perhaps quantum-gravity is very relevant, and the sensations such as 'red' are not fully understood yet - ie though sensations are entirely physical they are perhaps even somewhat 'mysterious' since they arise due to this sophisticated complexity of interconnection and quantum-gravity processess which are not yet understood scientifically.
type 3: color is 'qualia', the 'red' is neither 'in' the object or 'in the brain', it is associated in some way to our brain processess, in a way that is mysterious, and Descartes' musings about mind-body were about this.
------
B) The quantum measurement problem (QMP): re bringing about the change from the predicted superposition to the observed actuality of one specific result:
Answer 1: There is no real 'problem', or the alleged problem has been satisfactorily resolved, or it is not yet fully resolved in the sense of 'scientifically proven' but there are various statisfatory answers and one of them is almost certainly correct (and eventually we'll have a full mathematical quantum theory which includes the appropriate measurement-mechanism).
Answer 2: It may well be that observation by a brain is required in order to bring about the transition from superposition to unique result; a brain is the most complexly-interconnected entity, with sophisticated processess not present perhaps in any other venue, eg perhaps quantum-gravity is very relevant, and the sensations such as 'red' are not fully understood yet - ie though sensations are entirely physical they are perhaps even somewhat 'mysterious' since they arise due to this sophisticated complexity of interconnection and quantum-gravity processess which are not yet understood scientifically.
Answer 3: 'Consciousness' is required; it is not adequately encompassed by physics.
...
C) Tree falls in a forest with no brains present:
Answer 1. The issue is very well understood in physics.
Answer 2. The issue is very well understood in physics, but if brains are present the effect in them - though entirely physical - is qualitatively different than what present-day physics can describe;
Answer 3. The musings of Descartes and possibly even Berkely are relevant here.
...
D) The undisputed non-disprovability of Solipsism:
Answer 1. My brain exists, or I am a program in a computer or other device; the universe might not exist as I conceive it to be, but a brain or computer or other device definitely exists, and probably a physical universe needed to exist sometime to give rise to it. There is nothing about this issue which depends on there being brains present, just that by definition if we are speaking of a system which says "I cannot prove I exist as I conceive myself to exist" requires sophistication etc, and we would probably call any such system 'a brain'.
Answer 2. Same as 1, but the evolution of brains brought about a qualitative difference in this issue.
Answer 3. I cannot know whether the universe exists, nor even whether there is a physical brain or computer, all I can know is that I exist, and it may be that indeed only this "I" exists without any physicality existing at all; also: that this "I" exists is undisputable, and may be the only undisputable truth; for me this is the real or deeper meaning of solipsisim.
....
E) Godel's theorem; the 'passage of time' (and maybe the existence of 'laws of nature', etc):
Answer 1. Nothing mysterious, just logic.
Answer 2. A truth or sensation or perception that arises in brains due to their sophistication.
Answer 3. An indication that physics will not describe all that we know to be true, so there is a physical-transcendent level to 'reality'.