SWM wrote: >As to Chalmers, Searle himself, in The Mystery of Consciousness, >accuses him of dualism and panpsychism to boot. In that article we read >on Analytic we saw that Searle doesn't think dualism has any >significant implication for the issues connected with mind unless it >equates to what you and he call "substance dualism". And I tend to >agree with that.okay so we have a de facto classification scheme. substance dualism is like felony dualism. property dualism is like misdemeanor dualism. phenomenological dualism is hardly more than traffic ticket dualism.
>I am not prepared to pronounce on Chalmers because I haven't read >enough of him. ... [... wait for it ...] >From what I have read of Chalmers he is dualistic in an ontological >sense ... but achieves this by proposing ... a fifth bottom line >unexplained principle to go along with the four physics currently >posits: gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear attraction, weak >nuclear attraction. Chalmers argues that the only way to explain the >occurrence of consciousness in the universe is to suppose there is at >least one more principle or force. where does he say that? Joe -- Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@ http://what-am-i.net @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@ ========================================== Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/