On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 23 Feb 2010, at 06:45, Rex Allen wrote:
>> It seems to me that there are two easy ways to get rid of the hard
>> problem.
>> 1)  Get rid of 1-p.  (A la Dennettian eliminative materialism)
>> OR
>> 2)  Get rid of 3-p.  (subjective idealism)
>> For the reasons I've touched on above I don't see that introducing the
>> idea of a material world explains anything at all.  Therefore, I vote
>> for getting rid of 3-p, except as a calculational device.
>> The idea of a material world that exists fundamentally and uncaused
>> while giving rise to conscious experience is no more coherent than the
>> idea that conscious experience exists fundamentally and uncaused and
>> gives rise to the mere perception of a material world (as everyone
>> accepts happens in dreams).
>> What is the problem with this solution?
> You forget "3)
> 3) get rid of physical-3-p, but keep mathematical (arithmetical) 3-p. That
> is "objective idealism".
> And this you need in any account ... if only as 'calculational device'.
>  Then computer science solves the hard part of the mind problem, with the
> price of having to derive the physical laws from the belief that the numbers
> develop naturally from self-introspection. And it is not so amazing we
> (re)find the type of theory developed by the greeks among those who were
> both mystic and rationalist. They did introspect themselves very deeply,
> apparently.
> Wait my next post to David for how comp does solve the hard problem of
> consciousness.
> Bruno Marchal

Hmmmm.  Well, I think that your proposal suffers from the same
explanatory gap as physicalism.

So numbers and their relations and machines and whatnot exist
platonically.  Okay.  So far so good.

BUT I don't see why these things in any combination or standing in any
relation to each other should give rise to conscious experience - any
more than quarks and electrons stacked in certain arrangements should
do so.

I believe you that there is some mathematical description or
representation of my experiences...but I don't see why the existence
of such a representation, platonic OR physically embodied, would
result in conscious experience...?

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to