[Serious Phil] What KA really says
peterdjones at yahoo.com
Sun Jun 17 11:43:15 CDT 2012
--- In Phil-Sci-Mind at yahoogroups.com, Eray Ozkural <Philscimind at ...> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 7:36 PM, Peter D <Philscimind at ...>wrote:
> > --- In Phil-Sci-Mind at yahoogroups.com, Eray Ozkural <Philscimind@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Peter D <Philscimind@>wrote:
> > >
> > > > > So, all of your bickering
> > > > > amounts to basically nothing. It surely doesn't prove
> > nonreductionism or
> > > > > anything silly like that.
> > > >
> > > > You think Mary wouldn;'t have a reductive explanation of colour, hence
> > the
> > > > need for instantiation.
> > >
> > >
> > > No, that's very wrong, instantiation is possible ONLY BECAUSE there is a
> > > reductive explanation of color.
> > Utter nonsense. That's like saying that things fall because of Newton.
> No. Reductive explanation merely means a theory of what the guy is in
> physical language.
> It's the most that can be said in words, and the
> ultimate expression of that would be to *construct* qualia as you like.
Since when was building expressing?
> You simply don't get it,
True in a way. I find your comments quite incomprehensible.
>there is no use in arguing with you.
> Eray Ozkural, PhD candidate. Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
> http://myspace.com/arizanesil http://myspace.com/malfunct
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://undergroundwiki.org/pipermail/philscimind_undergroundwiki.org/attachments/20120617/19a10b15/attachment.htm>
> Philscimind mailing list
> Philscimind at ...
More information about the Philscimind