On 20 Nov 2008, at 19:38, Brent Meeker wrote:
Talk about consciousness will seem as quaint
as talk about the elan vital does now.
Then you are led to eliminativism of consciousness. This makes MEC+MAT
trivially coherent. The price is big: consciousness does no more
exist, like the
On Nov 19, 2008, at 1:43 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
So I'm puzzled as to how answer Bruno's question. In general I
don't believe in
zombies, but that's in the same way I don't believe my glass of
water will
freeze at 20degC. It's an opinion about what is likely, not what is
possible.
On 19 Nov 2008, at 22:43, Brent Meeker wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Nov 2008, at 16:06, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Bruno,
If no one objects, I will present MGA 2 (soon).
I also agree completely and am curious to see where this is going.
Please continue!
Thanks Telmo, thanks also to
On 20 Nov 2008, at 00:19, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Could you alter the so-lucky cosmic explosion beam a little bit so
that Alice still succeed her math exam, but is, reasonably enough, a
zombie during the exam. With zombie taken in the traditional sense
of
Kory and Dennett.
Of course you
Kory Heath wrote:
On Nov 19, 2008, at 1:43 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
So I'm puzzled as to how answer Bruno's question. In general I
don't believe in
zombies, but that's in the same way I don't believe my glass of
water will
freeze at 20degC. It's an opinion about what is likely, not
On Nov 20, 2008, at 10:38 AM, Brent Meeker wrote:
I think you really you mean nomologically possible.
I mean logically possible, but I'm happy to change it to
nomologically possible for the purposes of this conversation.
I think Dennett changes the question by referring to
Kory Heath wrote:
On Nov 20, 2008, at 10:38 AM, Brent Meeker wrote:
I think you really you mean nomologically possible.
I mean logically possible, but I'm happy to change it to
nomologically possible for the purposes of this conversation.
Doesn't the question go away if it is
On Nov 20, 2008, at 3:33 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
Doesn't the question go away if it is nomologically impossible?
I'm sort of the opposite of you on this issue. You don't like to use
the term logically possible, while I don't like to use the term
nomologically impossible. I don't see the
Kory Heath wrote:
On Nov 20, 2008, at 3:33 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
Doesn't the question go away if it is nomologically impossible?
I'm sort of the opposite of you on this issue. You don't like to use
the term logically possible, while I don't like to use the term
nomologically
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Nov 2008, at 16:06, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Bruno,
If no one objects, I will present MGA 2 (soon).
I also agree completely and am curious to see where this is going.
Please continue!
Thanks Telmo, thanks also to Gordon.
I will try to send MGA 2 asap.
Could you alter the so-lucky cosmic explosion beam a little bit so
that Alice still succeed her math exam, but is, reasonably enough, a
zombie during the exam. With zombie taken in the traditional sense of
Kory and Dennett.
Of course you have to keep well *both* MECH *and* MAT.
I think I
11 matches
Mail list logo
