on 15/1/03 8:23 pm, Richard Baker at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > William said: > >> Since there is empirical evidence for consciousness, your argument >> fails. > > There's only heterophenomenological evidence for consciousness - some > people say they experience it.
There might only be heterophenomenological evidence about the nature of consciousness, but I think its existence[1] is established on firmer grounds. Even if the explanation of its nature is that it is a mirage. > There's exactly the same kind of > "evidence" for God. No, that's just hearsay :) > > Also, the idea that something doesn't exist if there's no empirical > evidence for it is necessarily time-sensitive. For example, by that > argument, neutrinos and the planet Pluto didn't exist in the 19th > century. They didn't. [2] > I suppose an ontology dependent in that way on epistemology is > quite interesting though. It is :) [1] Of the thing to be explained. [2] And the planet Pluto may stop existing again in the future since there is some debate over its status as a planetary body. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
