On 24 Sep, 01:19, David Nyman <[email protected]> wrote:
> 2009/9/23 Flammarion <[email protected]>:
>
>
>
> >> > > 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 [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
