[Wittrs] Dualistic Cooties

  • From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 07:14:54 -0500

SWM wrote:

>iro3isdx wrote:

>>I do wish that both sides would stop accusing the other side of

that's not going to happen. accusing the other guy of dualism is how
philosophers play 'Cooties'.

>Dualism is not a pejorative, Neil. It merely denotes the idea that
>consciousness is ontologically basic, that it cannot be derived from
>anything else.

given a definition of 'consciousness' as awareness or as first-person
phenomenology (qualitative experience or qualia), Descartes would not be
considered a dualist using this definition. Descartes is considered a
dualist because the phenomenology of experience was derived from two
ultimate substances (objects in modern jargon): body and soul (mind).

>there is ... plenty of reason to think we can adequately account for
>consciousness as a non-ontological basic (i.e., as simply another
>feature of the physical universe as we now know and understand it).

one would have to assume that von Neumann is wrong about quantum
mechanics before there is any hope that the physicalist account of
consciousness might be true.



Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware



Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/

Other related posts:

  • » [Wittrs] Dualistic Cooties - Joseph Polanik