On Apr 25, 10:25 pm, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 4/25/2012 11:45 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> > On 24.04.2012 22:22 meekerdb said the following:
> > ...
> >> As I've posted before, when we know how look at a brain and infer what
> >> it's thinking and we know how to build a brain that behaves as we want,
> >> in other words when we can do consciousness engineering, the "hard
> >> problem" will be bypassed as a metaphysical non-question, like "Where
> >> did the elan vital go?"
> >> Brent
> > This is a position expressed by Jeffrey Gray as follows (he does not share
> > it):
> > ï¿½What looks like a Hard Problem will cease to be one when we have
> > understood the errors
> > in our ways of speaking about the issues involved. If the route were
> > successful, we
> > would rejoin the normal stance: once our head have been straightened out,
> > science could
> > again just get on with the job of filling in the details of empirical
> > knowledge.ï¿½
> > Evgenii
> I think the main mistake in formulating the 'hard problem' is thinking that
> we can't
> explain consciousness with mathematical theories like mechanics,
> astrophysics, quantum
> mechanics. The mistake isn't that we can explain consciousness, it's
> supposing that we
> can explain physics. We don't explain mechanics or gravity or
> electrodynamics - we have
> models for them that work, they are predictive and can be used to control and
> things. Bruno points out that *primitive matter* doesn't add anything to
> physics. When
> asked what explained the gravitational force Newton said, "Hypothesi non
> fingo". Someday,
> consciousness will be looked at similarly.
Is that any different to regarding cosnc. as fundamental, as dualists
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