David Nyman wrote:
> 2009/9/23 Flammarion <peterdjo...@yahoo.com>:
>>>>> Some people can argue that MGA is not needed. They believe that it is
>>>>> obvious that consciousness is not something material at all, and that
>>>>> it is a waste of time of both trying to attach consciousness to
>>>>> matter, or to argue with those who believes that is possible (with or
>>>>> without comp).
>>>> But I'll bet they still try to avoid being struck in the head.
>>> Good point. However, Donald Hoffman makes a highly relevant
>>> distinction between taking one's experiences literally, and taking
>>> them seriously. I would recommend the following piece, particularly
>>> the section on the MUI (Multimodal User Interface):
>> That is just rehashed idealism with all the standard problems.
> The point is that Brent's comment - like Johnson's 'refutation' of
> Berkeley - is ineffectual as a dismissal of Bruno's theoretical
> position. Hoffman gives a neat account of how this might go. As to
> the problems, you pays your money......
Of course Johnson's refutation didn't change any idealist
minds, but he pointed to the use of operational definitions
as the basis of science which ultimately had a lot more
influence than Berkeley.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at