On 8/22/10 5:30 AM, "Andre Broersen" <[email protected]> wrote:
> dmb says: > > Didn't mean to leave that impression and I have said many times that James > takes consciousness to be a process rather than a thing or an entity. It's on > the Oxford DVD, in fact. > > Andre: > Correct dmb, as usual: > 'To deny plumply that 'consciousness' exists seems so absurd on the face of > it-for undeniably 'thoughts' do exist- that I fear some readers will follow me > no farther. Let me then immediately explain that I mean only to deny that the > word stands for an entity, but to insist most emphatically that it does stand > for a function...that function is knowing'.(Essays in Radical Empiricism, > William James). Of course DMB knew it, he just hoped that I didn't. It was a deflection so he didn't have to answer the question. Which he still hasn't. And his answer, if it ever comes, will be some form of no mind/body, no problem. Of course this doesn't square with James, and current science but who cares. Dave Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
