2012/4/20 John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com>

> 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.
>
>

Craig and you are both example of unwise guys who thought that they are the
greatest, it's so funny to read your moronic comments.

>
>
>
>> > 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.
>

Yes what you can't talk about is moronic... maybe you are the moron ?

>
> > 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.
>

His argument does not hinge on it... Should I say it be wise for you to
understand it before criticising 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.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
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