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
> 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 ?
> 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
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at