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
For more options, visit this group at