Colin Hales writes:

> OK. There is a proven mystery called the hard problem. Documented to death
> and beyond. Call it Physics X. It is the physics that _predicts_ (NOT
> DESCRIBES) phenomenal consciousness (PC). We have, through all my fiddling
> about with scientists, conclusive scientific evidence PC exists and is
> necessary for science.
> So what next?
> You say to yourself... "none of the existing laws of physics predict PC.
> Therefore my whole conception of how I understand the universe
> scientifically must be missing something fundamental. Absolutely NONE of
> what we know is part of it. What could that be?".

The hard problem is not that we haven't discovered the physics that explains 
consciousness, it is that no such explanation is possible. Whatever Physics X 
is, it is still possible to ask, "Yes, but how can a blind man who understands 
Physics X use it to know what it is like to see?" As far as the hard problem 
Physics X (if there is such a thing) is no more of an advance than knowing 
neurons fire when a subject has an experience.

Stathis Papaioannou
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
 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