2012/4/20 John Clark <[email protected]> > On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > 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 [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
