home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!The-Star.honeywell.com!umn.edu!msus1.msus.edu!stafford.winona.msus.edu!user
- Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
- Subject: Re: views on consciousness
- Message-ID: <Stafford-231192164156@stafford.winona.msus.edu>
- From: Stafford@Vax2.Winona.MSUS.EDU (John Stafford)
- Date: 23 Nov 92 16:53:12 -0600
- Followup-To: alt.consciousness
- References: <serb.157@polisci.umn.edu> <robg.722057543@citr.uq.oz.au> <1992Nov23.210858.2144@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
- Distribution: world
- Organization: MSUS
- Nntp-Posting-Host: stafford.winona.msus.edu
- Lines: 28
-
- In article <1992Nov23.210858.2144@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
- (Robert McGrath) wrote:
- >
- [stafford's article omitted]
-
- > Attributing this to "workings of the universe which we are not
- > yet sophisticated enough to know directly" shows a definite lack
- > of knowledge of how human mental activity actually works. Perhaps
- > you should learn something about how ordinary humans work before
- > you speculate about things you suppose to be human abilities.
- >
-
- Such a challenge ("learn something of how...") is rhetoric and you
- know it. We could go onto another thread to discuss this. You
- may _believe_ that you know more. Perhaps you support the emerging
- 'agents' hypothesis of how mind works, but you still don't know how
- it works. You haven't enough 'knowledge' of this or proabably any
- other physical account of mind to support anything but your _faith_
- in your scientific methodology.
-
- So we shall continue with the thread; the philosophy of the concept
- of consciousness. We can start a separate one to embrace your science
- if you wish.
-
- > Robert E. McGrath
-
-
- John Stafford
-