Yes, it does seem reasonable.
>Empirical Science (operating within Cartesian dualism) has been a science of
>the "objective" world (as defined from above). Therefor, that science cannot
>address issues of the "subjective" world like consciousness.... if you try to,
>you get a logical paradox.
This is close to what I've stated earlier. Objective science always
sees the world from the outside. Since the mind is on the inside it is out of
reach, it can only be studied behaviorally as a "black box". Even when science
does try to penetrate into the black box it always only see new outsides inside
the black box. Instead of seeing ideas, percepts and associations inside the
mind, science sees neurons, firing patterns and network configurations inside
the brain.
>I have four questions:
You must remember that the moebius strip is only a geometrical visualization of
a
precise underlying hyper-structure. In this context it is this underlying
structure which is important, not the twisting and angles of the moebius strip.
Moebius strips and other hyper-objects are only useful ways of visualizing
structures that would otherwise seem paradoxical.
However, you have demonstrated that I might be addressing something different
than the paradox of the objective approach to the subjective world. They are
surely related, but I need to study Rosen's paradox more closely before I can
determine if it is the same paradox as I resolve with hyper-set theory.
Generally hyper-set theory unifies complementaries and symmetrical worldviews.
(eg the "virtual reality" perspective is symmetrical with the objective
worldview)
Onar.