> On 18 Jul 2010, at 17:38, Brent Meeker wrote:
> Unless the W. Cooper's book refutes the movie graph argument, for
> example by justifying Jack Mallah's claim that consciousness stop
> supervening physically on a machine in case a physical piece of the
> machine, which is supposed to have no physical activity in the
> computation concerned, is removed. (But then how could we still say
> yes to a doctor, who may suppress anything strictly needed for some
> range of computation). That moves seems an introduction of magical
> property of both matter and mind of the type precluding any hope to
> use evolution theory to explain reason. WE have already discussed this.

Something just occurred to me that might make sense to you guys.

It seems like mental properties supervene on physical properties or that
physical properties supervene on mental properties, right?

I think I've figured out why the mind-body problem is so hard. It hinges
on the meaning of words.

How may minds do you have?

You have two.

Which is which?

Why didn't anybody see this before?
Mark Buda <her...@acm.org>
I get my monkeys for nothing and my chimps for free.

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