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 consicousness does not mean it is systematically and deliberately ignoring the question. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---