把“上帝和天使”放在一边。有点简单了，你不觉得吗?这不是意味着一个独立的现实吗?我可能误解了你的帖子(这种情况很少发生)，但是关于上帝就是一切，甚至更多的观点呢?是各个部分的总和还是更多?
I would also point out that just because something is larger in size than another does not mean it's more complex.

For my part I wonder if this discussion shouldn't connect up with the classic substance-attribute debate. I mean, the thorough-going reductionist might feel compelled to reduce even seemingly fundamental substances like electrons to mere bundles of properties (a charge trope, and a mass trope, and a spin trope, etc....), with nothing over and above (or beneath and below?) those attributes. But this certainly strikes me as counter-intuitive. Moreover, if we suppose that consciousness can't be reduced to the physical (I personally doubt that it can), then we seem faced with the same problem, but with the phenomenal. Could consciousness just be a bundle of qualia, as Hume seemed to think? Doesn't experience entail an experiencer?

Beyond your uncertain levels of reality is the absolute level of truth.
=
MJA
Reno

A mild beef with reductionism:
Suppose I wish to convince persons to vote on a measure. To do so I won't reference solutions to chemical problems. It is possible to conceive that our social problems are, at base, physical problems, but that doesn't imply that they are this way.
从另一个角度来说，我不会去践踏我感兴趣的物理问题的解决方案，因为它可能会在更基本的层面上与物理问题发生冲突。我要看看这个解决方案能让我走多远，然后就到此为止。
I guess I just don't think that pointing to a smaller level of reality constitutes an explanation. An explanation constitutes an explanation, whether it be a mathematical model or a qualitative concept. Of this set of explanations there exists a subset of explanations titled "the thing that makes the thing we're interested in does this" -- in Aristotelian terms, a "material cause" -- which seems to model what a reductionist explanation consists of. One may build their model with other levels in mind, and science tends to do this because it appears more consistent (which I think is nice), but it doesn't have to be the case.

之前宣布的节目《德里达与解构》会在晚些时候播出吗?
It was scheduled for the week of 11/14/10.

Shouldn't explorations involving "levels of reality" focus primarily on realities we can confirm empirically or analytically...realities we can share with little or no disputation...and realities that are, by and large, merely points of view that cannot be confirmed as, for example, true universally?

作为一名科学家，我有一个问题。为什么接受还原论需要“对意识的生物学理解”，更重要的是，为什么有些人认为这种理解并不存在?虽然认识不完全，但科学是存在的。如果不是这样，现代医学就不会存在。也许很难理解或接受，但这并不能改变它。一个人可能不了解自己使用的计算机，那么，这难道不构成一个独立的现实吗?
Fundamentally, I also wonder how much this discussion is not the result of attachments to western theology. Zen teaches us to accept what is without trying to fit it into our understanding. It is quite the opposite and I find it quite comforting. I also don't have attachments to the concepts of God and angels.
我并不害怕我的意识与我周围的世界不是截然不同的东西。我感到欣慰的是，我是共同存在线索的一部分。我的意识是宇宙的一部分，因为它是我的一部分。它太复杂了，我无法一一列举，但这并不使它不那么复杂。
我想，作为一名科学家，我坚定地站在了简化论者的阵营。我只是想知道，如果一个人批判性地思考，他如何能够否定我们存在的物理本质。
This does not, of course, mean that there are not still greater questions. My question, though, again, being a happy convergence of quanta, and the foci of the universal forces that have, over eons conspired to create my consciousness, all of which now result in the question, what does any-one's concept or understanding of reality have to do with it at all?
如果我不明白，请原谅我。

当简化主义者看到我的(或别人的)ct扫描(或任何将来可能会有的扫描)，正确地说，“啊，你现在想到的是欧几里得证明不存在最大素数的第二步，这一步是XXX”，那么我就会接受简化论。在此之前，涌现是主导。

Reality is at the absolute equal or same level as truth.
其他方面都不真实。
你是什么级别的?
=
MJA

Emergence Theory, is not religious friendly, but will explain, I think, how "rituals" aid the human psyche.
Emergence is not going to explain the Monotheistic Interpretation of Reality, because the arguments for the existence of the Monotheistic God, have all been recognized as fallacious. Arguments which hold no credence in the Twenty-First Century.
涌现理论可以验证几个世纪以来一直支撑着自由主义思想的哲学。为了反对那些垄断“来世”的人，我们俗人必须认识到这一事实。

水平的现实?是的，我想是的。插图:现实第一层——你把我的头放在水下的时间超过了我屏住呼吸的时间。我被淹死。这是事实。
现实第二层——你是天主教的信徒，我是禅宗佛教徒。你信仰基督，玛丽，等等;我认为它们并不重要。这就是条件现实。
Reality Level Three-quantum physics and quantum mechanics consider those things that are infinitely small and infinitely speedy---so small and so speedy that we cannot know where they are, only where they may have been. This is theoretical reality.
当然，现实的种类远不止这些。但我们大多数人永远不会在乎。这是应该的。我们大多数人没有理由去关心现实，除了每天进入我们生活的那些。虽然我们可能有哲学思维，但我们不是哲学家。这也是它应该有的样子。

A philosopher is a lover of truth,
and I as are many are true lovers too.
=

I only know One answer, the truth.
And it took more questions than the great Socrates asked, to find The Way.
Keep asking, and maybe you'll get lucky too.
Be One,
=
PS: But who should One ask about the truth?
Who knows the Way?
我们在哪里可以找到今天的伟大圣人?
The answer quite beautifully and simply,
Is You!

"FUG" (see above) raises a question about "explanation" that I would modify with the necessary/sufficient distinction (I often find this distinction useful, but I have no idea where it comes from or if it is philosophically respectable. Can anyone help me?)
Take the example of the writing in these blogs. Reductionism can chart the "necessary" physical conditions that make this writing possible. But reductionism is not "sufficient" to explain the content of these particular blogs at this particular time.

我很欣赏R. Wess的观点。我不知道我是否需要解释才能接受。从科学上讲，两者都不可能是完整的。我们无法完全描述宇宙。我们可以简化宇宙并描述它的某些方面，作为一个整体或在量子中，或者我们可以关闭一部分，称它为一个封闭系统。不管怎样，我们比宇宙还小，无法容纳它。这两个概念我都不懂，但我看得出来，这两个概念都不完整。
On another tack, Phiwilli states he will accept reductionism when a person's thoughts can be detected on the order of "Ah, you are now thinking ... Euclid's ... prime number ... XXX". Much of what I heard on the radio came down to the ability to determine thought in such terms. I would like to point out that I rarely hear anyone (R. Wess a rare exception) who doesn't fall back to the safety of the superiority of the mind. No one, for instance states that they doubt biology because we can't tell how many leaves a tree will have by scanning the seed. Nor have I heard anyone doubt gravity because we can not tell where a leaf on a tree will land once it falls. We listen to weather reports without doubt, yet no one can tell where any drop of rain will land. We have no better understanding of any other complex system which for the most part we accept.
That last weather report example is bad. No one really believes the weather.
I am reminded that man kind did once believe trees had souls. Such things are seen as quaint myths. So, I am sure, will our current attachments be dismissed. We will need a much greater level of understanding of our own minds and the universe at large for most of us to let go of our personal myths.
The point is, I find it more fascinating that people are comfortable not knowing some things and entirely uncomfortable not knowing others and likewise afraid of knowing ourselves. The theories are less interesting than the reasons we need them.