The problem is as old as humanity, and is often answered by religion, which are or are not authoritative. A reformulation appears with Descartes, in the mechanist frame. But frankly, read the UDA, which can be seen as a new formulation in the frame of the digital mechanist hypothesis in the cognitive science.
In a nutshell, it is the problem of how a qualitative experiential feeling of consciousness can be associated with third personal object relations. How a grey brain makes us feel color, if you want. And then it touches question like "does consciousness have a role?", "is there a first person death", etc. You can Google on it on the web, but in this list we are far in advance :) Most people still believe simultaneously in MECHANISM, and WEAK MATERIALISM (the idea that stuffy matter exists). My point is that iMECHANISM and MATERIALISM (or PHYSICALISM) are epistemologically incompatible. Mech + Mater. leads to person eliminativism. Mech itself leads, by UDA, to a material appearance emerging from infinite sum of purely mathematical computations. UDA shows that computationalism leads to refutable facts, and one of my main point is that computationalism (or digital mechanism) is empirically testable, and indeed confirmed (not proved!) in his most startling features by quantum mechanics. Digitalism makes the mind-body problem a throughly scientific problem. It is the least I want to show. Read the paper here if you want save your time: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html Those results are not yet very well known. But they fit with many intuitions discussed in this list. Bruno On 02 Jul 2009, at 20:02, Brian Tenneson wrote: > I'm ignorant of what you mean by "mind body problem." Can you > explain this or send me some place on the net that explains it? > Thanks. > > Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> I will take a further look, but I already see that the author is not >> aware of the mind body problem. On logic he seems not too bad ... (he >> is unaware also that very few people knows anything in model theory). >> >> The way he tackles the everything question is flawed by his >> unconscious use of the identity thesis in the "philosophy of >> mind" (alias cognitive science). >> >> Bruno >> >> >> On 02 Jul 2009, at 11:30, ronaldheld wrote: >> >> >>> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.0216v1.pdf >>> comments? >>> >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
