On 30 January 2014 12:32, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 6:22:43 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > >> On 30 January 2014 12:21, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 6:13:35 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >>> >>>> On 30 January 2014 12:09, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 6:01:19 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 30 January 2014 11:39, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 5:38:04 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 30 January 2014 11:24, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 1:34:48 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Craig Weinberg < >>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> > NO ROOM CAN BE CONSCIOUS. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And we know that because we can say it in all capital letters, or >>>>>>>>>> possibly from the teachings of two of your favorite subjects, >>>>>>>>>> astrology and >>>>>>>>>> numerology. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The all caps were in response to Bruno's all caps, and no, you >>>>>>>>> don't need astrology and numerology to understand that rooms are not >>>>>>>>> haunted by the spirits of system-hood. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Imagine a small, roughly spherical room made out of a fairly hard >>>>>>>> material something like limestone. Make a few holes in it, fill it with >>>>>>>> some goop with the consistency of blancmange, decorate with sense >>>>>>>> organs >>>>>>>> and throw in a body. >>>>>>>> Et voila! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Voila, a cadaver. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Unless *all *such objects are cadavers, this "disproves" the >>>>>> statement that *no *room can be conscious. >>>>>> (I must admit the idea that "no room can be conscious" seems to >>>>>> demand qualification...) >>>>>> >>>>> All such objects would be cadavers, in the absence of some subjective >>>>> experience which is being expressed. >>>>> >>>> What about anaesthesia and dreamless sleep? >>>> >>> Our personal level of awareness is not the totality of the awareness >>> that our lives consist of. We sleep, but if we have to pee, who wakes us up >>> so we don't wet the bed? >>> >> So all such objects aren't cadavers. >> > If you are unconscious, you don't personally exist, but you exist > sub-personally and super-personally. A body has microscopic and macroscopic > scales, but those are only from the perspective which is available through > our body, and its use of other bodies. The difference between a cadaver and > a living person's body is not within the body, it is within experience. > It's aesthetic, not functional. Although the functional and aesthetic > perspectives can influence each other, as the cart can influence the > behavior of the horse, the cart is ultimately dependent on the horse rather > than the other way around. > One difference between an unconscious body and a dead one is that you can return an unconscious one to consciousness later. That sounds kind of functional to me. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
