On 2/16/2014 5:14 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 17 February 2014 00:12, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>
wrote:
I don't think so. We know where the values of the Mars Rover are encoded
and how
they affect its behavior and we know how we could change them. That's
about as good
as reductionism gets.
But now aren't you just substituting value as an epiphenomenon of physics in place of
consciousness? Stathis could just as easily say that this was merely a manner of
speaking and whatever occurs is simply a consequence of physical causation.
I and I would agree with Stathis - except for the "merely". I think Bruno was right when
he observed that "epi" doesn't mean anything in this context. Stathis doesn't think that
consciousness is separable from the physics; it's just talking about the same thing at a
different level. We don't call life an epiphenomena of biochemistry. And I regard
"meaning" in the same way, or as Dennett calls it "the intentional stance".
Brent
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
