>
>I am indeed convinced that mechanism is not the only way to look at
>things. The beauty of mechanism is that with mechanism, it is even
>necessarily so. I mean mechanism entails the consistency of
>non-mechanism. A little like the fact that consistency of arithmetic
>entails the consistency of the non consistency of arithmetic ( a form of
>second Godel's theorem).
>
>I have put the thesis on my web page. You can load it at
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/marchal
>
>The file is pdf. I am not sure all figures will be nicely printed. The
>web pages has been created yesterday.
>Sorry but I have been obliged to write the thesis in french (with the
>"loi Toubon").
>The thesis (a new version of it) will be published by Grasset in France.
>English papers will be available on my page ASAP.
>Thanks for your interest.
>
>Bruno
Hi Bruno
I just download your thesis. It seems to be really a great work (and I
appreciate the fact that it is written in french!), but I need time to
deeply understand it. I just wanted to precise at which level do you
separate from mechanism: I agree that mechanism does not answer the
question of the origin of consciousness. But actually science does not
answer any question on the origin of anything. What do you think of the
phenomenological relevance of mechanism? That is, leaving completely aside
the question of consciousness, do you think that known physical laws,
applied to our collection of neural cells in interaction with the outer
world, can reproduce our external behaviour, including language, artistic
creations, etc?
Gilles
Received on Wed Jan 13 1999 - 06:02:38 PST