On 04 Jul 2011, at 06:16, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/3/2011 7:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Jul 3, 2011, at 4:46 PM, meekerdb <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
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Jason Resch
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 6:23 AM, selva kumar
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.
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.
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.
The mathematical science is certainly not causally inert. Without
math, no chips, no internet, no man on the moon, etc.
And from inside the computationalist mindscape, the dynamics emerge as
internal (arithmetical) indexicals. But this is the fate of any TOE,
or better ROE (realm of everything, the theories themselves only
scratches the surface).
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.
Like mechanism justifies that the "material force" will be discarded
as non existent, but explainable in term of number theoretical
relations (coherent number's beliefs). Here the numbers are "Gödel
number" of machine with respect to some set of universal machines. I
don't know if this is true, but I am pretty sure it follows from the
indexical assumption "My 3-I (body) is Turing emulable at a level
sustaining my consciousness".
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