On 07 Dec 2012, at 13:04, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen,
I think that's just more materialist wishful thinking, because mind
and body
are completely different substances,
In the plato sense? OK. (hypostase is better than substance in this
case, as subtance is often considered as primary)
no matter what your philosophy or
science, and cannot interact.
They are logically "interacting" though.
Bruno
The failure to solve the "hard problem"
shows that.
[Roger Clough], [[email protected]]
12/7/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-06, 10:14:29
Subject: Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science
Hi Stephen,
This is the case with modern cognitive science:
�
1)牋It ignored Descartes' two substance (mind and brain)
solution to the mind/brain problem in favor爋f treating
both substances as material.
A common criticism of dualism is the problem of interaction. If
mind is outside the physical world, how does it interact with body?
Any mechanism of interaction you can propose would make mind part
of the physical world, thus negating dualism.
Dear Telmo,
牋� There is no "problem of interaction" if mind and body are
isomorphs of each other, as Pratt proposes; they are Stone duals of
each other, here. Descartes' substance dualism fails because the
poor chap was asking the wrong question. The right question to ask
is: How do minds interact with each other? Answer: via bodies. Minds
are just the self-representations that bodies can have of themselves.
Thanks for the link, I'll read it once I have a bit more time.
�
I appreciate and share the sentiment that there is something
extremely weird about consciousness, that cannot be explained by
current science. I don't buy into the idea that consciousness
emerges from neural activity. Yet, any explanation must place
consciousness inside the real of physical laws (or vice-versa),
otherwise the previous paradox arises.
牋� Once we accept that consciousness is only knowable in a first
person sense we will stop asking for third person descriptions/
explanations for it.
I agree but to me "first person" and "consciousness" are exactly the
same thing. The deep existential questions remain unanswered...
�
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
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
.
--
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
.
--
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
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
