Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!news.duke.edu!convex!convex!hermes.oc.com!internet.spss.com!markrose
From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Subject: Re: Reductionist Materialism (was Re: I lie therefore I am?)
Message-ID: <CzBuxE.434@spss.com>
Sender: news@spss.com
Organization: SPSS Inc
References: <36e5oe$6nc@toves.cs.city.ac.uk> <1994Nov11.210534.24348@seas.smu.edu> <fred.hegge.110.1BEA33F4@paltech.com> <1994Nov14.203936.12341@seas.smu.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 21:12:49 GMT
Lines: 16

In article <1994Nov14.203936.12341@seas.smu.edu>,
Kenneth J. Hendrickson <kjh@seas.smu.edu> wrote:
>You beg the question.  You first assume that material stuff is all that
>exists, and then assume (correctly based upon the assumption) that ideas
>must exist in material media.  I will concede to you that for beings
>such as humans, who have both physical and non-physical components, a
>physical medium is necessary for communication of ideas.  However, while
>you use your physical brain for perception, you don't use it for storing
>ideas.  Ideas have ABOUTness.  It is not possible for any arrangement of
>chemicals or electrical impulses to have ABOUTness.  Therefore, ideas
>are not stored in the physical brain.  The mind is not the brain.  Your
>assumption is wrong.

I see.  Now how about a proof of the claim that "it is not possible for
any arrangement of chemicals or electrical impulses to have ABOUTness",
which does not itself beg the question?
