Tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackPhilosophy/status/485337225245515776
2 put relevant information into title / changed tag / reworded for clarity
source | link

useless predicates What does it mean to deny consciousness is physical?

If you were to describe something as brittleMy question is really theories of consciousness that take the view that it is fundamentally non-physical.

I understand the meaning of applying predicates like brittle, soft, hard, light, heavy, toxic, edible, non-edible, viscous, supple, hot, tepid, etc., you would have something to work with. If onI

What are the other hand you were to describeadvantages of describing something as physical, precisely what advantage does this have? My question is really about theories of consciousness that take the view that it is fundamentally non-physical. If If describing something as physical is otiose, then so must be non-physical descriptions.

useless predicates

If you were to describe something as brittle, soft, hard, light, heavy, toxic, edible, non-edible, viscous, supple, hot, tepid, etc., you would have something to work with. If on the other hand you were to describe something as physical, precisely what advantage does this have? My question is really about theories of consciousness that take the view that it is fundamentally non-physical. If describing something as physical is otiose, then so must be non-physical descriptions.

What does it mean to deny consciousness is physical?

My question is really theories of consciousness that take the view that it is fundamentally non-physical.

I understand the meaning of applying predicates like brittle, soft, hard, light, heavy, toxic, edible, non-edible, viscous, supple, hot, tepid, etc., you would have something to work with. I

What are the advantages of describing something as physical? If describing something as physical is otiose, then so must be non-physical descriptions.

1
source | link

useless predicates

If you were to describe something as brittle, soft, hard, light, heavy, toxic, edible, non-edible, viscous, supple, hot, tepid, etc., you would have something to work with. If on the other hand you were to describe something as physical, precisely what advantage does this have? My question is really about theories of consciousness that take the view that it is fundamentally non-physical. If describing something as physical is otiose, then so must be non-physical descriptions.