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 everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to