On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: >> fortunately they use things other than mind to explain how mind works. >> > > > Elimanating often the qualia and consciousness. Material explanation > explains only the behavior. >
Only?! However unfortunate it may be the fact remains that in dealing with minds other than your own behavior is all you have to work with. That's why those who really want to explore this write computer code or examine the firings of neurons, while dilettantes talk about qualia and consciousness because its so easy to do so, any theory they dream up to explain it will work as well as any other theory, but doing real science is hard work. And I've asked this question nineteen dozen times before and have yet received no answer: if Darwin was right and if consciousness is not inextricably linked with behavior then how to you explain the fact that you Bruno Marchal came to be and is conscious? >> By the way I read Krauss's "A Universe from Nothing" a few weeks ago and >> thought it was excellent. >> > > > He does not explain where the physical laws come from, > Krauss is well aware of that criticism and discusses it at considerable length in his new book, in fact he explores that topic more extensively than any other subject in the book. I would humbly suggest that before you criticise a book by a well respected physicist and think your opinion on it would be of interest to others it might be wise to actually read the thing. > > nor does he addressed the consciousness issue. > How would you like him to address that? Do you want him to explain consciousness in terms of consciousness as so many philosophers before him have done all to useless effect? > But of course you need to develop your understanding of the mind-body > problem. The english literature contains many good texts. > Like "What is it like to be a bat?", like "The Chinese Room", like endless speculation about the noise "free will"? Pure moronic drivel. > Then the UDA explains how to reformulate the problem into a purely > arithmetical problem. > I don't think so. You go on and on about the profound differences between various increasingly convoluted "views" and yet you can't give a single example of two things being identical by what you call "the 3-view" but not by "the 1-views themselves". Not one example even though your entire argument hinges on it. John K Clark -- 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.
