on 8/1/03 8:45 pm, Dan Minette at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "BRIN-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 11:18 AM > Subject: Re: A Problem For Conservatives > > > >> >> In the real world nobody refuted the argument. > > But, the problem with this argument is that, if you define what real is, of > course you can refute arguments you disagree with.
I didn't define what real was. I just pointed out that in the real world nobody refuted the argument. > > For example, if one wishes to argue that only things for which there is > solid empirical evidence need to be considered real, one finds much in the > trash heap; including many things believed in by empiricists. The classic > one is self-awareness. If the mind can be reduced to the brain, 'Reduced to' isn't equivalent to 'is'. The mind may be supervenient on the brain, but that isn't the same as being the brain. > and the brain works by biochemistry, then there is no reason to assume that > humans are self aware. It adds nothing that cannot already be explained by > biochemistry. It makes a big difference to the truth value of the phrase "I am self aware". And empirically one could look at the patterns of activity in a person's brain when they uttered that phrase to see if they were lying or not. > Yet, few atheists deny the existence of self consciousness, > and argue long and hard that what isn't self consciousness really is. What has atheism got to do with consciousness? Atheism addresses the question of the existence of god(s), and has nothing to do with the question of consciousness. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ A computer without Windows is like a cake without mustard. - anonymous _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
