On 9/5/2011 8:13 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2011 6:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/5/2011 1:40 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Brent,

On 9/5/2011 3:50 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/5/2011 12:02 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Realism and nominalism in philosophy are related to universals (I guess that numbers could be probably considered as universals as well). A simple example:

A is a person;
B is a person.

Does A is equal to B? The answer is no, A and B are after all different persons. Yet then the question would be if something universal and related to a term "person" exists in A and B.

Realism says that universals do exist independent from the mind (so in this sense it has nothing to do with the physical realism and materialism),

I think of that as Platonism. I think of realism as just the theory that things exist independent of minds.


How does realism explain the means by which knowledge of these 'things that exist independent of the mind" obtains? Is there some form of interaction between those 'independent things' and our minds? If so, that mechanism is this and how does it work?

Those things interact with a brain which instantiates the mental processes. At least that's the theory.


So the mind is merely epiphenomena? OK... Are you truly satisfied with that explanation?

Of course not. I might eventually be satisfied when we can engineer artificial intelligences that exhibit the kind of behavior that makes up believe other humans are conscious and we can say why one AI seems conscious and another doesn't. Maybe it'll be because we make it Lobian.


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to