home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
- Path: sparky!uunet!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!spool.mu.edu!sgiblab!munnari.oz.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!robg
- From: robg@citr.uq.oz.au (Rob Geraghty)
- Subject: Re: views on consciousness
- Message-ID: <robg.722057543@citr.uq.oz.au>
- Sender: news@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au (USENET News System)
- Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland
- References: <serb.157@polisci.umn.edu>
- Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 03:32:23 GMT
- Lines: 26
-
- serb@polisci.umn.edu (Scott Erb) writes:
-
- >The discussion about physical vs. non-physical is interesting, but perhaps
- >we simply make the discussion based on our sensory abilities. If we can see
- >or feel something, it's physical. Or, to move on a bit, if our instruments
- >can measure it, it's physical. What is beyond our senses (which capture
- >only a small band of energy anyway) or our instruments (which are improving,
- >but in a way limited by our present knowledge) is called non-physical, or
- >meta-physical or whatever.
-
- So how about this suggestion - many (maybe not *all*) phenomena now
- claimed to be meta-physical are *real* but not explicable with current
- technology and theory. What would people have thought 200 years ago if
- you showed them a laptop PC? ("What? An IBM?" ;-P) How about what Clarke
- said - "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
- magic" - perhaps "meta-physical" events are simply events that our
- technology is not sufficiently advanced to explain.
- (to look at Clarke's assertion another way...)
-
- Rob
-
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Rob Geraghty | 3 things are important to me
- robg@durian.citr.oz.au | The gift of love, the joy of life
- CITR | And the making of music in all its forms
-