[lit-ideas] Re: the first lines are the argument referred by

  • From: "Adriano Palma" <Palma@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 15:07:59 +0200

** 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
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]
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
3. apply to "x is a thought" and "y is a brain state", conclude y isn't
identical to x
that is the argument"

Below is a link to an article I came across a few days ago.


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/

Other related posts: