I don't think you understand what I'm saying when I say belief. I am saying that consciousness is actually a belief in the thoughts, etc., it apparently consists of. It does not require that we regard those beliefs as true. But even that's a still conscious act, a belief. We can believe that we hold untrue thoughts. We can believe that we hold true thoughts. Both rely on belief.
If we can agree for a moment that only material existence, including consciousness, is actual and identifiable, what is lost? If mind or sould is immaterial, how can be be gained or lost (to consciousness)? 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, 8:38 PM > If, for you, belief is proof, then we don't agree on > basic > assumptions/axioms and then you'd be right. End of > discussion. (I respect > that you believe but that doesn't equal proof to me - I > wouldn't believe > it.) > Geoff C > > > >From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [email protected] > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: RE: Materiality > >Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 13:48:24 -0800 (PST) > > > >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,
