Re: Asifism

From: Bruno Marchal <>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 11:05:33 +0200

Le 07-juin-07, à 15:47, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :

> Bruno Marchal skrev:Le 04-juin-07, à 14:10, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
>>> Pain is the same thing as the pain center in the brain being
>>> stimulated.
>> In the best case your theory will work for you and other "zombie".
>> It cannot work for those who admit the 1/3 distinction or the
>> mind/body apparent distinction.
>> You are on the fringe of being an eliminativist philosopher. What I
>> do appreciate is that you offer your theory for yourself. Let me ask
>> you explicitly this question, which I admit is admittedly weird to
>> ask to a zombie, but: do you think *we* are conscious?
> When I look at you (in 3rd person view), I see that you are
> constructed in exactly the same way as I am. So I know why you say
> that you are conscious. I know nothing sure about you, but the most
> probable conclusion is that you are equally unconscious as I am.

Actually I do think like Quentin. I don't think you can *know* anything
if you are not conscious. Knowing is a sort of truth awareness, albeit
incommunicable as such.

> What is the philosophical term for persons like me, that totally deny
> the existence of the consciousness?

An eliminativist.
(But I don't understand what you mean by "persons like me", which is a
first person notion in need of some implicit notion of consciousness).

In some country, until rather recently, some doctor did operate babies
without anesthesia, because they did believe that baby are not
conscious. Now, they have changed their mind, and babies are treated by
surgeon with anesthesia. Does this controverse makes sense for someone
who deny totally the existence of consciousness?

> (I also deny the existence of infinity...)

If you deny only what is called in the literature the "actual
infinite", that is the idea of a close and well defined infinite entity
or set, then you could be an intuitionist, or a finitist, or a
computationalist. What I call "comp", or digital mechanism, is called
"finitism" by Judson Webb (ref in my thesis or any of my papers).

If you deny the potential infinite as well, (that is the idea that some
set can be generated forever although not in any actual form, like when
se say: {1, 2, 3 *ETC*}, then you belong to the few who are
"ultrafinitist". I don't believe that the very notion of ultrafinitism
could be defined in any ultrafinitist way, unless you are materialist
and physicalist, meaning that when you say that you don't believe in
infinity, you really are only saying that you don't believe in *primary
physical* infinities. Note that by UDA, comp or finitism entails there
are no physical primary entities at all, neither finite nor infinite.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Fri Jun 08 2007 - 05:05:46 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:14 PST