🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan20.050642.4355@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>If you try to tell me that there is something that is real, cannot be
>perceived, _and_ has no physical effects, direct or indirect, then logic would
>indeed tell us to forget it.  But I agree with logic here.

	I know an example of what you want: other people's
consciousness. When you get right down to it, all we have is induction
to verify they exist. Another's consciousness can't be perceived
directly. As for indirect, that calls for drawing conclusions. We may
believe that sentience is a prerequisite for human-type behavior, but
who knows? Maybe a mindless automaton of sufficient complexity could act
the same.

	Even your _own_ consciousness isn't provable by others.
Sentience has all the characteristics of a mystical notion, _is_ a
mystical notion, but pure materialists always seem to overlook it.

						Kayembee