correction, "or in so far as something does cause you to reflect on the
figment consciousness" not "are in so far as something does cause you to
reflect on the figment consciousness"
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 8:32 PM, B Soroud <bsor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "if you are thinking about consciousness, then what else could it have been
> but consciousness that caused you to think about it"
> Are you saying consciousness literally causes you to objectify
> consciousness? Consciousness as a base is required to reflect on
> consciousness... the question is whether consciousness can truly be
> objectified or only falsely so.
> You could similarly differentiate consciousness from existence and say that
> existence as a base is required in order to "talk about consciousness"....
> you can go on to enumerate many things in such order. But nothing
> deterministically causes you to reflect on the notion of consciousness
> abstracted and objectified as such without direct reflection but imagined
> supposition...... are in so far as something does cause you to reflect on
> the figment consciousness... will to knowledge, will to power etc.... we
> haven't determined it.
> "If consciousness is causually inert then history would be the same even if
> it were abolished throughout the universe.
> can you please define consciousness here? what would be the same if what
> was abolished from the universe?
> You can't really define consciousness, consciousness is essentially
> indefinable, therefore "it" doesn't exist... it is a merely inferred
> supposition.... if you think that doesn't make sense, just cause it doesn't
> make sense doesn't mean its not true.... just as, just because something
> makes sense doesn't mean its true..... similarly, just because something
> seems to make sense doesn't mean it actually makes sense, furthermore, just
> because something doesn't make sense doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.
> "To me it seems absurd that we would be endlessly debating some nonexistent
> thing which none of us has ever experienced, yet that is exactly the
> conclusion that comes from assuming consciousness has no effects."
> First off, what is wrong with absurd... existence is absurd, should we
> abolish it?
> "nonexistent thing which none of us has ever experienced"
> is there a such thing as a nonexistent thing that none of us has ever
> experienced? read Parmenides.
> Is it consciousness that is causally effective or is it the will that is
> causally effective........ perhaps we can make a distinction between
> consciousness and the will.... the will guided by the imagination as the
> basis of action.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at