On Mar 7, 2:52 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> > You haven;t explained why they should be dealing with > > consc. in the first place. Surely it is prima facie psychology. > > There is no human observation without consciousness. There can be no observations without sense organs, but it is not the job of physics to study sense organs > > Implicitly you are. To say that physics has failed > > to deal with it is to imply that it should be dealing with it, > > which is to imply that it is fundamental > > It was fundamental for the greek. Science is born from an > understanding that the physical reality might hide something, notably > mathematical truth (Xeuxippes), or just 'truth', the original "god" of > the Platonists. But you can do physics without working on the mind- > body problem. But fundamental physics is more demanding. To solve the > mind-body problem in a monist theory, you have to sacrify, at the > ontological level, either mind or matter (provably so assuming comp). Reduction is not elimination -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.