On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> The speech centres must, through a relay of neurons, receive
>> information from the visual centres if the subject is to make any
>> statement about what he sees.
>
> What makes you think that's the case? That's a blatant fallacy, isn't
>
On Oct 18, 3:15 pm, benjayk wrote:
> >> Complete control over anything is simply impossible. Control is just a
> >> feeling and not fundamental.
>
> > It depends what you mean by complete control. If I choose to hit the
> > letter m on my keyboard, am I not controlling the keyboard to the
> > ext
Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> On Oct 18, 10:00 am, benjayk wrote:
>> Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>> > Here’s a little thought experiment about free will. Let’s say that
>> > there exists a technology which will allow us to completely control
>> > another person’s neurology. What if two people use this
On 16 Oct 2011, at 20:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Here’s a little thought experiment about free will. Let’s say that
there exists a technology which will allow us to completely control
another person’s neurology. What if two people use this technology to
control each other? If one person started
On Oct 18, 10:00 am, benjayk wrote:
> Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > Here’s a little thought experiment about free will. Let’s say that
> > there exists a technology which will allow us to completely control
> > another person’s neurology. What if two people use this technology to
> > control each ot
On Oct 18, 12:19 am, meekerdb wrote:
> On 10/17/2011 7:45 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > On Oct 17, 9:06 pm, meekerdb wrote:
>
> >>> Since we know absolutely that we have experiences which cannot be
> >>> observed directly in the tissue of the brain,
> >> We don't know that. We only know that w
Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> Here’s a little thought experiment about free will. Let’s say that
> there exists a technology which will allow us to completely control
> another person’s neurology. What if two people use this technology to
> control each other? If one person started before the other,
Hi Peter,
On 18 Oct 2011, at 13:00, Peter Kinnon wrote:
While the comments made here make interesting and amusing reading the
underlying rationale of COMP as an attempt to resolve the mind-body
problem which worried earlier philosophers is, in my view fatally
flawed. Here are some of the main
While the comments made here make interesting and amusing reading the
underlying rationale of COMP as an attempt to resolve the mind-body
problem which worried earlier philosophers is, in my view fatally
flawed. Here are some of the main reasons:
1. There is no longer a "mind-body problem". Obj
9 matches
Mail list logo
