Luke, You kindly sent me three thick paragraphs from his book--sufficient, indeed, for one to say, 'not out of context'. Moreover, what he wrote was clear in meaning. This indicates that you did some research in sending me the clearest statement possible that Peikhoff could have made concerning my question. For this effort , I again thank you. To this end, reading more would most likely not alter my disagreements. To wit: * The endeavor called 'Philosophy of Science' seeks to understand how science interfaces with philosophy. * Garden-variety consciousness can mean either 'awake' or 'aware'. * Another branch of philosophy called 'Consciousness' studies how we can better speak of consciousness in ways that are not garden variety. By their mode of current mode of classification, Peikhoff and Bins would be called "Property dualists'. This means that they believe that whatever conscious is, its constituents cannot be reduced to matter. * Matter not 'ostensible' in the sense that is used by any science. Rather it's the working assumption that because only matter can cause, what's caused can accordingly be reduced to material capacities. HEP Physics can do a slight alteration and assign cause to force particles (bosons), as well as material fermions. But even here, you would speak of consciousness be ing reduced to the interaction of, say, photons... Eva
| 
