On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> On 5/1/2010 12:25 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
> On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
> This argument is not
> definitive mainly because we don't have a definitive theory of
> consciousness, but to the extent we assume a physical basis for
> consciousness it seems pretty good.
> Ha!  As long as you assume there is no problem of consciousness, then
> there's no problem!  That is pretty good.
> So you do have a theory of consciousness in which we can have timeless
> thoughts?

I'll go with Kant.  Time is an aspect of consciousness, not something
that exists independently of conscious experience.

So one possibility is that the universe exists and causes our
conscious experience...that our conscious experience is an aspect of
the physical world.

But what stops us from reversing that and saying that our
consciousnesses exist and the physical world is just an aspect of that
conscious experience?

How do you justify accepting the former while rejecting the latter?

I accept the latter and reject the former because I don't see what
introducing the "physical world" as something prior to and independent
of consciousness buys us in our attempts to explain our orderly
conscious experiences. If it is intended to explain the order and
consistency of our experiences, then what explains the physical
world's order and consistency? It seems to me that we've just changed
the question, not answered it. And in the process introduced the
additional question of how consciousness arises from matter.

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

Reply via email to