This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
Strawson finds his place to stand in an ontological agnosticism, edged up quite close to solipsism. The dualism answer is that we do know in part because of our experience of consciousness and our success at manipulating the material world around us. Our physical senses are reliable for interacting with the physical. Our mental capabilities are successful at dealing with consciousness. Strawson presents a more formidable problem for the empiricist. The demand for empirical evidence becomes hollow "because it is precisely science that makes the key point shine most brightly: the point that there is a fundamental respect in which ultimate intrinsic nature of the stuff of the universe is unknown to us except insofar as it is consciousness." Then it is consciousness where the proof lies, not in the science.
We can't know that consciousness is matter without defining consciousness We don't actually know what matter is., I can't get a science type to tell me what charges are made of or subatomic particles are made of apart from other charges and particles. there is no there there
We don't know what consciousness is but it doesn't matter, what is really strange is what matter is but we can be sure that matter is physical and then that consciousness is physical.???This word - physics - what does _that_ mean then?
it means we are arrogant enough to think we know something that we don't know., Do you realize that we have not yet answered the first philosophical question of pre Socratics? do you realize calling it physics comes from them?
this is really funny you say that like its obvious so since it is so obvious tell me what su atomic particles are made of?
Post a Comment