I'm not trying to win anything. I do ask that we examine how we think and go as deeply as we can and I think we ultimately come to belief. Belief is the fundamental level of conscious thinking or awareness. It is the notion we act upon, rightly or wrongly. This is not my idiosyncratic idea but is based, I think, in Husserl. In short, we believe and then we "see". 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, 10:41 PM > William: Quite possibly I don't understand what you mean > by belief. A belief > we hold we may believe is untrue. A belief you hold may be > that > consciousness is not material. You challenge me to prove > that your possibly > untrue belief is untrue. > It's too circuitous for me. If it helps, you can win. I > would say it's a > mug's game. Your rules for what you believe are > idiosyncratic and beyond my > knowing that I understand them (or not). > Geoff C > > > >From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [email protected] > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: RE: Materiality > >Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 19:14:18 -0800 (PST) > > > >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
