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
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

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

Reply via email to