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 email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at