Dear Stathis,

In a phrase, I would loose choice. What you are asking me is to give up any hope of understanding how my sense of being-in-the-world is related to any other phenomena in the world of experience and instead to just blindly believe some claim. Are we so frustrated that we will accept "authority" as a proof of our beliefs? I hope not!

Pratt's disdain follows from the obvious failures of other models. It does not take a logician or mathematician or philosopher of unbelievable IQ to see that the models of monism that have been advanced have a fatal flaw: the inability to proof the necessity of epiphenomena. Maybe Bruno's theory will solve this, I hold out hope that it does; but meanwhile, why can't we consider and debate alternatives that offer a view ranging explanations and unifying threads, such as Pratt's Chu space idea?

Kindest regards,


----- Original Message ----- From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <>
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 2:36 AM
Subject: Re: Olympia's Beautiful and Profound Mind

Dear Stephen,

The Pratt quote below shows disdain for historical solutions to the mind-body problem, such as Descartes' theory that the two interact through the pineal gland, but goes on to say that this is no reason to throw out dualism altogether. Now, I have to admit, despite spending my adolescence in the thrall of logical positivism (I still think A.J. Ayer's "Language, Truth and Logic" is one of the great masterpieces of 20th century English nonfictional prose), that there is something irreducible about 1st person experience, forever beyond 3rd person verification or falsification; a blind man might learn everything about visual perception, but still have no idea what it is like to see. However, what reason is there to extrapolate from this that there must be some special explanation for the interaction between body and mind? What do you lose if you simply accept, as per Gilbert Ryle, that the mind is what the brain does? Otherwise, you could seek a special explanation for an electronic calculator's matter/mathematics dualism, or a falling stone's matter/energy dualism, or any number of similar examples. Occam's razor would suggest that such complications are unnecessary.

--Stathis Papaioannou

Reply via email to