Le 21-mars-06, à 02:50, Johnathan Corgan a écrit :

> Still, there is a certain appeal to shifting the question from "Why are
> we conscious?" to "Consciousness doesn't exist, so why do we so firmly
> believe that it does?"

What would it mean that  "consciousness doesn't exist"? It is not just 
hard to figure out what this would mean for "me" here and now; but it 
seems to me that such an idea could lead to some philosophy promoting 
the negation of the (first) person.

I can doubt there is a God, I can doubt there is a Universe, I can 
doubt there is a universal wave function, I can doubt they are numbers, 
I can doubt that something interesting about consciousness can be said, 
and I can doubt that I am typing on a keyboard right now, but then I 
can hardly doubt I am *dreaming* ---at least--- that I am typing on a 
keyboard right now, and that what I am writing make sense even I fail 
to convey it, which actually I can doubt too (because for all practical 
purposes I don't doubt at all that if am conscious you are too).

Consciousness is just a peculiar inescapable believe in a reality 
whatever that reality could be. It is that thing without which there 
would be no inquiries, nor interrogations. I suspect it arises in 
relatively self-moving entities, in part to avoid the possible 
collisions or to handle them.


PS Formidable meeting at London. Otto Roessler coined the idea of 
consciousness as a form of prison which is coherent with the "many 
world" "interpretation" of QM and/or comp. Roessler shares with me a 
common and unfortunately rare understanding of Descartes mainly about 
the necessary relation imposed by his Mechanism between rationality and 
humanism. You can look here (but it is in German): 


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to