Before someone says that billiard balls are not complex enough to have an internal life, I would point out that neither is there any way to deduce a priori that humans have conscious experiences. You have to actually be a human to know this.
You don't need to postulate a special mechanism whereby mind interacts with matter. The laws of physics explain the workings of the brain, and conscious experience is just the strange, irreducible effect of this as seen from the inside.
> >Lee corbin wrote: 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 prove 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? > > I just have to say that I have utterly no sense that anything > here needs explanation.
I have to agree. Perhaps it is because I'm a Denett devotee, brainwashed into a full denial of qualia/dualism, but I've yet to see any coherent argument as to what there is anything about consciousness that needs explaining. The only importance I see for consciousness is its role in self-selection per Bostrom.
REALESTATE: biggest buy/rent/share listings http://ninemsn.realestate.com.au