Bruno Marchal wrote: > Le 04-sept.-06, à 02:56, 1Z a écrit : > > > > > Why should a belief in other minds (which I do not directly experience) > > be more reasonable thant a belief in unexperienced primary matter ? > > It's a question of consistency. > > Attributing mind to others explains many things.
And the project of expaling things with matter has been going strong for many centuries. > There are rich (albeit > vague) theories about those other mind (treated in Psychology (cf > jealousy, shame, fear, ...) and Theology (does other minds go to > paradise?). Although I have no direct experience of other minds I have > many indirect evidences. Yes, that;s the problem. What stands between your mind and other minds is your body and other bodies. > Unexperienced primary matter? I have not even indirect experiences, No experience of time and change ? > and > with comp and/or the quantum I can not even ascribe a simple meaning to > the concept. Quantum mechanics is a theory *of* matter. > Why should I postulate something I don't understand? > Of course I believe in the existence of fermions and bosons, of stars > and galaxies, ... I believe also in the existence of Bridge and Chess, > Nations and humans, etc... I see only relatively stable patterns and > histories. > > Bruno > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
