« Saturday Night at the Oldies: Go Carly! | Main | Galen Strawson on Zombies and Whether 'Physical' is a Natural Kind Term »

Sunday, September 20, 2015


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

What say you, Vlastimil?

Hi Bill - I'll jump in quickly. The post you first hyperlinked to, above ("Here is a characteristic post"), set forth an argument, at the end of that post; is it still an argument and conclusion that you embrace?
I'm just wondering if your thinking has changed since that post.

"Maybe the meat between my ears does have the power to think. But then that meat is not matter in any sense we currently understand."

But, what exactly, according to you, is _matter in the sense we currently understand_? And does matter so conceived really exclude, a priori, that it thinks? About this the physicalist would love to hear more details.

I'm not following you, Dave. What makes you think my thinking has changed? By the way, the whole post is the argument; the part at the the end is merely the summary.


It is the matter we read about in physics books. And yes, given what we read in those books it is unintelligible that matter thinks. And anyway, you hold that too, don't you? Else how could you be a mysterian?


I agree that so far we don't find described in physics books any sort of matter -- any sort of a particle, field of force, string, manifold, or their combination -- about which we would _know_ that it thinks or how it could think. But how do we get from this epistemological premise to your ontological conclusion that _no_ sort of matter described in physics books thinks? You even suggest we know that a priori. Then where's the a priori justification?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 10/2008



March 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      
Blog powered by Typepad