On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 4:34 PM, David Nyman<[email protected]> wrote: > So my point is simply: let's start from the understanding that to > exist is just and only what it is to exist-for-oneself: the defining > characteristic of existence is 'taking everything personally'. The > standard put-down at this point is something like 'well how personally > do you suppose an electron takes itself?' to which the riposte is > simply 'precisely as personally as it needs to exist'.
So I'm willing to believe that there might be "something that it's like" to be an electron, that electrons may in some way have some sort of subjective experience. BUT, as you say, that all happens in a different part of the forest. I don't see that the electron's experiential aspect contributes in any way to my experience of electrons. And, in a easier to visualize vein, the same goes for chairs. Maybe there's something that it's like to be a chair, but this is irrelevant to my conscious experience of chairs. How could the chair's experience of its existence affect my experience of the chair? So in addition to conscious experience being uncaused, I take it to also be acausal. Conscious experience only does one thing: exist. Consciousness just is. There's nothing else to it. No other purpose for it. No deeper meaning in it. No additional role that it plays in some larger process. I take it to be acausal even to the extent that my current subjective experience is not caused by my previous experiences. Each moment of consciousness stands alone, connected to it's predecessors and successors only by the similarity of their content. You can find all sorts of causal-structure models, in physics or in COMP, that can be fit to the contents of your conscious experience, but these are just descriptive, not proscriptive. > As to 'first' causes, I think > we've reached the end of the semantic road. If you want, you can can > elect to be a mathematical Prospero and conjure us from the deep by > tautological force majeure, or you can accept the mystery of our > contingent 'necessity'. Take your pick. It does seem likely to me that our conscious experience exists necessarily. Though for it to be a mystery would imply a hidden, unknown cause. But consciousness is uncaused, it just exists (necessarily), so there can be no mystery. BTW, the quality of your posts are very high, it surprises me that you can write them so quickly. Well done! --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
