On 16 October 2014 19:54, Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]> wrote:
I think it's a matter of semantics. I'm sure Graziano experiences what I > experience, given my use of the word "experience", but due to his > understanding of what underpins this experience he chooses to say it > doesn't really exist. It's as if someone chose to say life does not really > exist on the grounds that it's all just chemistry. That doesn't strike me as a good example. I presume both you and he would agree that there's simply no need to posit "something" (elan vital?) over and above its physical basis in order to have a satisfactory intuition about what is meant by life. There's nothing obviously counter-intuitive about the idea that life demands no explanation beyond the particular physical processes that constitute living systems. On the other hand I presume you don't find the parallel intuition - that consciousness demands no explanation beyond its correlation with specific physical processes - similarly satisfactory. Am I wrong? David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
