Colin Hales wrote:
> >
> > Empiricism as a philosophical movement has traditionally been opposed
> > to metaphysics. It hasn't just been a mild disagreement either, but an
> > at times vicious dispute (well, as vicious as philosophers get). David
> > Hume suggested that the best place for books on metaphysics was
> > in the fire, and his successors including logical empiricists and analytic
> > philosophers of the past century have generally tended to agree with
> > him.
> >
> > Stathis Papaioannou
>
> It's one of my favourite lines from Hume!.... but the issue does not live
> quite so clearly into the 21st century. We now have words and much
> neuroscience pinning down subjective experience to the operation of small
> groups of cells and hence, likely, single cells. It's entirely cranial CNS.
> Cortical, Basal, Cerebellum, upper brain stem. So....
>
> Q If empiricism demands phenomenal consciousness as the source of all
> scientific evidence (close your eyes and see what evidence is left. QED.) of
> the science of the appearance of things, then what is phenomenal
> consciousness itself evidence of?
>
> A. An underlying reality, deserved of physics but untouched by science,
> eschewed as 'mere metaphysics'.
The fact that science can't explain what causes phenomenal
consicousness
does not mean it is systematically and deliberately ignoring the
question.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 Fri Oct 20 2006 - 11:13:46 PDT