On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 6:38:22 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 30 January 2014 12:32, Craig Weinberg <[email protected] <javascript:> > > 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. >
It's only functional if you assume that consciousness has value beyond the operation of the body. The condition of being able to return though is not necessarily part of the body. I can leave my house and the house will fall into disrepair eventually, but that doesn't mean that I am part of my house, or that there is some quality of my house which equals the fact of my presence in it. -- 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.
