** For Your Eyes Only ** ** High Priority ** ** Reply Requested by 11/4/2011 (Friday) ** the beauty of the cartesian argument is that it is simple, so either you show it is not valid or you show it is not sound. the rest is fluff. (for the record, I d not think at all the so called question of consciousness is the hardest problem of science, in part because it is not exactly a problem and because it is of no consequence to anything at all, with the possible partial exception of some contorted moral issues, if kicking me in coma is to be assessed on the same plane as kicking me not in coma etc.) ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ξε ν’, γγέλλειν Λακεδαιμονίοις ἀ ὅτι τ δε κείμεθα, το ς κείνων ῥήμασι πειθόμενοι. /begin/read__>sig.file: postal address palma University of KwaZulu-Natal Philosophy 3rd floor of Memorial Tower Building Howard College Campus Durban 4041 South Africa Tel off: [+27] 031 2601591 (sec: Mrs. Yolanda Hordyk) [+27] 031-2602292 Fax [+27] 031-2603031 mobile 07 62 36 23 91 calling from overseas +[27] 76 2362391 EMAIL: palma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx EMAIL: palma@xxxxxxxxxx MY OFFICE # IS 290@Mtb *only when in Europe*: inst. J. Nicod 29 rue d'Ulm f-75005 paris france email me for details if needed at palma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ________ This e-mail message (and attachments) is confidential, and/or privileged and is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail you must not copy, distribute, take any action in reliance on it or disclose it to anyone. Any confidentiality or privilege is not waived or lost by reason of mistaken delivery to you. This entity is not responsible for any information not related to the business of this entity. If you received this e-mail in error please destroy the original and notify the sender. >>> Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxx> 11/4/2011 3:03 PM >>> Adriano Palma wrote: "1. x=y then , for all properties/predicates P(y) IFF P(x) — [I use the strongest for simplicity] 2. {from 1, by contrap} if P(y) & not-P(x), THEN y isn't identical to x 3. apply to "x is a thought" and "y is a brain state", conclude y isn't identical to x qed that is the argument" Below is a link to an article I came across a few days ago. http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/the-hardest-problem-in-science/40845 Apparently not everyone would agree that it is demonstrated that a thought isn't identical to a brain state. Phil Enns Please find our Email Disclaimer here: http://www.ukzn.ac.za/disclaimer/