What's true of noxious stimulation is true of any stimulation, since neural activity is common to both. Absent all neural activity and thus absent consciousness and even life. It's counterintuitive to recognize that all thought is brain activity and all brain activity is material but that's how it is, insofar as anyone can demonstrate.
We are saying the same thing when we say mind, brain, spirit, soul. I'd prefer it be otherwise but I can't find anything to truly justify it, excep-t, of course, belief. And that's where I always end up, admitting that belief underlies all thought. WC --- On Sun, 11/30/08, GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: Materiality > To: [email protected] > Date: Sunday, November 30, 2008, 1:11 PM > I guess it depends on one's definition. I agree that it > is difficult to > prove that something doesn't ... exist/have > materiality. It would also be a > challenge to you to do more than nfer that consciousness > has > materiality/exists. My responding to noxious stimulation > would prove that I > have sense receptors and my brain responds by trying to > move my physical > self from the area of annoyance. That wouldn't > demonstrate the materiality > of consciousness to me. > Geoff C > > > >From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [email protected] > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: RE: Lehrer and Whitman > >Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 09:59:11 -0800 (PST) > > > >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." > > > > > > > > > > > >
