Colin Hales wrote:
> >
> > Empiricism as a philosophical movement has traditionally been opposed
> > to metaphysics. It hasn't just been a mild disagreement either, but an
> > at times vicious dispute (well, as vicious as philosophers get). David
> > Hume suggested that the best place for books on metaphysics was
> > in the fire, and his successors including logical empiricists and analytic
> > philosophers of the past century have generally tended to agree with
> > him.
> >
> > Stathis Papaioannou
> It's one of my favourite lines from Hume!....  but the issue does not live
> quite so clearly into the 21st century. We now have words and much
> neuroscience pinning down subjective experience to the operation of small
> groups of cells and hence, likely, single cells. It's entirely cranial CNS.
> Cortical, Basal, Cerebellum, upper brain stem. So....
> Q If empiricism demands phenomenal consciousness as the source of all
> scientific evidence (close your eyes and see what evidence is left. QED.) of
> the science of the appearance of things, then what is phenomenal
> consciousness itself evidence of?
> A. An underlying reality, deserved of physics but untouched by science,
> eschewed as 'mere metaphysics'.

The fact that science can't explain what causes phenomenal
does not mean it is systematically and deliberately ignoring the

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