From: Paul Hughes (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Mar 30 2004 - 15:46:10 MST
I could and have argued that the reductionists have
not forwarded the discussion either. It seems to me
that Dennett and other reductionist have tried to
"explain away" the hard problem. I'm seeing the same
mistake here, and I don't think I should apologize for
pointing it out. To me it seems that people in the
reductionist camp refuse to acknowledge that the hard
problem even exists, and continue to place the problem
within the domain of the easy problem. I am not
speaking of something "mysterious", as much as it may
seem to you from a reductionist perspective. I agree,
from a reductionist perspective the hard problem
--- Michael Roy Ames <email@example.com> wrote:
> hold to the reductionist viewpoint (me included)
> consider such a change in
> definition to be unhelpful.
Change? Since when? This debate has been raging for
centuries. Again, I would say and have said that
reductionist are guilty of the same. And their
oversight in acknoweldging the "inner experience" has
been equally unhelpful. If anything it has been the
reductionist who are trying to change the definition
of the hard problem in order for it to fit the model
(reductionism). This is unhelpful, as it places the
problem within premature constraints.
> Can you see
> how the question is
> different? And can you tell us why the change is
The question that each of these camps is asking is
different. Can you explain to me why I should stick
with your question rather than mine? I know you think
you are correct, and I think I am. So we each ask a
different question, but we are in the same
So here's coming back at you. :-)
P.S. Like Jef, I'm taking a breather on this one for now.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:46 MDT