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 <selvakr1...@gmail.com> wrote:


On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:


On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 6:23 AM, selva kumar <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.

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".

Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to