On 4/27/2012 7:29 AM, 1Z wrote:

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?"
This is a position expressed by Jeffrey Gray as follows (he does not share it):
�What 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 
I think the main mistake in formulating the 'hard problem' is thinking that we 
explain consciousness with mathematical theories like mechanics, astrophysics, 
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

I think it is. We don't regard elan vital as fundamental, we just gave up looking for it. We decided life is a process, not a substance.


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