"And in any case, the elan vital was
endlessly debate for centuries and was eventually discarded as
perhaps erroneously... such as perhaps "ether" was erroneously
discarded. Perhaps many things were erroneously negated.... Jung talks
of "psychic forces" it seems like a evocative and persuasive concept
On Jul 3, 9:16 pm, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 7/3/2011 7:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
> > On Jul 3, 2011, at 4:46 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
> > <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
> >> On 7/3/2011 8:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 2:35 AM, selva kumar <selvakr1...@gmail.com
> >>> <mailto:selvakr1...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Jason Resch
> >>> <jasonre...@gmail.com <mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 6:23 AM, selva kumar
> >>> <selvakr1...@gmail.com <mailto:selvakr1...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>> Is consciousness causally effective ?
> >>> If it is not causally effective, then you must explain what
> >>> caused the word "consciousness" to enter our lexicon and
> >>> what caused the field of pihlosophy of mind, and all the
> >>> various books on the subject of consciousness. The dirty
> >>> secret of epiphenominalism (the theory that consciousness is
> >>> casually inert) is that if it were a true theory, the theory
> >>> of epiphenominalism would be entirely private and
> >>> unsharable. The fact that a theory was generated and shared
> >>> to explain consciousness proves consciousness has effects.
> >>> Even the fact that we are discussing it now in this thread
> >>> can be taken as evidence of its causal effects.
> >>> Jason
> >>> Then by your definition..Consciousness is our ability to think ?
> >>> No, my point is that if you are thinking about consciousness, then
> >>> what else could it have been but consciousness that caused you to
> >>> think about it?
> >> That would be the material cause in Aristotles sense. But material
> >> causes don't form causal chains.
> >> Brent
> > If consciousness is causually inert then history would be the same
> > even if it were abolished throughout the universe.
> > 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.
> You are making a leap of inference from causally inert to nonexistent.
> Mathematics is causally inert. Yet it's existence is debatable and it's
> certainly interesting to discuss. And in any case, the elan vital was
> endlessly debate for centuries and was eventually discarded as nonexistent.
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