On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 01:20:36PM +1300, LizR wrote: > On 6 February 2014 13:16, Russell Standish <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > That is exactly why I say a BU can never describe consciousness. > > > > Is that specifically a BU, or any form of materialism? >
Materialism only really entails supervenience of consciousness on the physical world. I use the term physicalism to refer to the idea that physical theories are sufficient to explain / describe consciousness and eliminative materialism to describe the idea that conscious either does not exist, or is mere epiphenomena, with no causal role at all. Note that Bruno's MAT is actually physicalism, not materialism, something which has caused me great confusion in the past. The problem was that the MGA is cloaked in the language of supervenience, which belong to materialism in general, not just physicalism. The BU is just a description, or a picture, of reality. It is not one of the 'isms of the philosophy of the mind. But if you were to take the BU as fundamental, then you would be adopting eliminative materialism. Cheers -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics [email protected] University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
