Le 04-sept.-06, à 02:56, 1Z a écrit :
>
> Why should a belief in other minds (which I do not directly experience)
> be more reasonable thant a belief in unexperienced primary matter ?
> It's a question of consistency.
Attributing mind to others explains many things. There are rich (albeit
vague) theories about those other mind (treated in Psychology (cf
jealousy, shame, fear, ...) and Theology (does other minds go to
paradise?). Although I have no direct experience of other minds I have
many indirect evidences.
Unexperienced primary matter? I have not even indirect experiences, and
with comp and/or the quantum I can not even ascribe a simple meaning to
the concept. Why should I postulate something I don't understand?
Of course I believe in the existence of fermions and bosons, of stars
and galaxies, ... I believe also in the existence of Bridge and Chess,
Nations and humans, etc... I see only relatively stable patterns and
histories.
Bruno
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 everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Mon Sep 04 2006 - 09:47:44 PDT