On 24 Sep, 01:19, David Nyman <david.ny...@gmail.com> 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......

The idealist defence agaisnt these refutations always involves things
being arranged "just so" so as to givew he imitation
of a material world with minds supervening on brains. And it
doesn't give  a good reason why things should be just so. It's a much
worse explanation than the explanations you are objecting to.
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