Re: death of the mind.

From: Eray Ozkural exa (erayo_at_bilkent.edu.tr)
Date: 07/27/04 

Date: 27 Jul 2004 02:48:36 -0700

"John Hasenkam" <johnh@faraway.> wrote in message news:<41050c89@dnews.tpgi.com.au>...
> "dan michaels" <feedbackdroids@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8d8494cf.0407252021.66067bcf@posting.google.com...
> > "John Casey" <kjcasey@hotkey.net.au> wrote in message
> news:<410422ee_1@news.iprimus.com.au>...
> >
> >
> > > So hard to convey a mental concept using words with shifting
> > > meanings. Have you ever read the Matter Myth by Paul Davies?
> >
> >
> > This isn't actually related to your question to Eray, but I've always
> > had the feeling that PD was really just a fundammentalist masquerading
> > as a scientist. Whadyathink?
>
> Well he did win the Templeton Prize, I think that is the name. It was for
> improving communication between science and religion ...
>
> For that matter, I wonder about the real motivations behind Penrose.

Me, too.

He seems to claim the solution to the mind/body for himself. Hence,
the philosophical arguments based on Godel's results, etc. He's a
physicist: he will surely prefer the mind to be a wave function,
rather than a computation which the computer scientists know better.

Regards, 

--
Eray Ozkural