----- Original Message -----
From: "John Mikes" <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>
To: <hal.domain.name.hidden>
Cc: ">" <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>; "James Higgo" <j.domain.name.hidden.co.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 10:57 PM
Subject: Re: Is consciousness real?
> Dear Hal, I think you have the bathwater without a baby in it.
>
> Consciousness is a historical noumenon of no content, an imaginary 'thing'
> that does not exist. Certain aspects of the human complexity - mainly
> mental, but corporeal management as well - are combined into this "word"
> which gives rise to endless, but well paid (including 'scientific glory
and
> tenure) discussions and teachings.
> Everybody identifies this monster according to the needs of one's
> theoretical whim,
> from physicists to mystiques, from psychoscientists to MDs. Some argue
about
> the "location" of this nonlocal atemporal bunch of concepts, others assign
> it exclusively to the neuronal activity, transcending with an elegant
> nonchalance from the physical data into mental concepts (like e.g. the
> beauty of a sunset, or validity of a legal decision) - even presuming an
> unproven causal closure.
> You even cannot identify what "mostly" belongs into consciousness, because
> everybody formulates a (different) 'mostly'.
>
> The "flow of thoughts" by James is also arbitrary, it misses the
> characteristics when in lack of an "unconsciousness" the bodily aspects
are
> active. Where he is right is the nonexistence of the noumenon.
>
> "Conscious" is identifiable, being 'c' (about?) is not 'cness'. Similarly
a
> pars pro toto category mistake would be identifying the monster with any
of
> its assumed ingredients (true or not), as e.g. suffering or love etc.
>
> To reject a word the meaning of which was struggled upon over millennia of
> poorer information (epistemic that is) than lately acquired does not want
to
> "solve all the problems". It is not intended to do so. It may eliminate a
> pompous topic which takes lots of energy from able people who could work
in
> more relevant and fruitful topics.
>
> This is why I said: this bathwater has no baby in it. Throw it out.
>
> John Mikes
> <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>
> "http://pages.prodigy.net/jamikes"
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <hal.domain.name.hidden>
> To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>; <hal.domain.name.hidden.org>; <j.domain.name.hidden.co.uk>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 3:08 PM
> Subject: Re: Is consciousness real?
>
>
> > James Higgo writes:
> > > Consciousness - a flow of related thoughts in time - does not exist,
any
> > > more than time itself exists. All that exists of 'you' is this very
> present
> > > thought.
> > >
> > > This simple view solves all known paradoxes of consciousness, fits
with
> what
> > > we know of the world, and is, incidentally, in concord with Buddhist
> > > philosophy. You can even be happy if you believe it; believing it
forces
> you
> > > to live in the present.
> >
> > This solves all the problems, does it? What about the question of
> > whether something, say an animal or a fetus, is conscious or not?
> > Should I treat conscious and unconscious entities the same?
> >
> > And if consciousness doesn't exist, does that mean suffering doesn't
> > exist either? Should we not care about slavery, torture and other
> > institutions that cause human suffering?
> >
> > I think you have thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
> >
> > Hal
> >
>
Received on Wed Jan 17 2001 - 20:05:31 PST