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):
>>> http://www.cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/ConsciousRealism2.pdf
>> 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......
> David

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 everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to