So how do you demonstrate the immateriality of consciousness? How do you demonstrate the immateriality of anything at all? WC
--- On Sun, 11/30/08, GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: Lehrer and Whitman > To: [email protected] > Date: Sunday, November 30, 2008, 8:49 AM > Cheerskep: For one who emphasizes (sometimes on and on) the > role of the mind > in deciphering meaning from, at least, words, one would > have thought that > you would have thought that you would find Lehrer's > reference to Stevens' > line about "august imagination" at least somewhat > sympathetic to your > perceptions. > Do you mean to deny the 'immateriality" of > consciousness? > Geoff C > > > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Reply-To: [email protected] > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: Lehrer and Whitman > >Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 17:14:43 EST > > > >I'm afraid I truly began to object to Jonah Lehrer > and to his book "Proust > >Was a Neuroscientist" even before I got to a word > Lehrer wrote. A mind that > >would choose this quote from Wallace Stevens to be the > first line of his > >book > >is > >not a mind for me: > > > >"Reality is a product of the most august > imagination." > > > >Sounds august itself, that line, doesn't it? It is, > like much Stevens's > >poetry, a dreary commonplace jumped up by the > emperor's generalizations to > >seem > >like profound wisdom. Not only is it falsely inflated, > it is, to most > >anyone > >who > >considers it seriously, false period. > > > >We all have heard the commonplace expressed in homlier > terms, like, "What > >one > >man sees as a glass half empty, another sees as a glass > half full." The > >pessimist and the optimist, addressing the same > "facts", will interpret > >them > >very > >differently. The underlying notion is true enough but > utterly trite. Do you > >feel the "reality is" that the life of man is > solitary, poor, nasty, > >brutish > >and > >short? I don't. We have different attitudes, > energy-levels, "livers" -- > >thus > >producing what Stevens calls our imaginations. > > > >Where Stevens's cliche merits being called flatly > false, is, say, when you > >step in a hole and break your leg, or get cancer, of > your spouse's head is > >crushed by a falling rock. That rock is, in most > people's vocabulary, > >"real"; > >it is > >not the product of anyone's imagination. Beware of > anyone who begins a > >sentence, "Reality isb&" > > > >From his "Prelude" (Oy!), I judge Lehrer an > adroit and mellifluous writer > >whose mind is, as Whitman's was, as romantically > drippy and formless as > >melted > >chocolate. > > > >I have never enjoyed people who revel in their > inconsistency -- as Whitman > >did. Lehrer differs from Whitman: Lehrer does not > realize he is > >inconsistent. > > > > > >The one line from his "Prelude" I hope you > will remember as you read on in > >his book is: > > > >"Our science is incomplete, no map of matter will > ever explain the > >IMMATERIALITY of our consciousness." > > > > > > > >************** > >Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the > NEW > >AOL.com. > (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity& > >ncid=emlcntaolcom00000002)
