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 everything-list@googlegroups.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.

Reply via email to