On 1 August 2014 06:14, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 6:37 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> Suppose for the sake of argument that in order to be conscious, >>>> people needed a Descartes-style spirit to be attached to their brains. >>>> >>> >>> >> Then changes in the Descartes-style spirit changes the material world >>> and changes in the material world changes the Descartes-style spirit; so >>> why do you call this thing a "spirit"? What exactly makes it more >>> unmaterial than an electron or a photon or even a baseball? >>> >> >> > Not necessarily. We could assume consciousness is an epiphenomenon, >> just along for the ride. >> > > I have more than once said that if Darwin was right (and he was) then the > above MUST be true, consciousness MUST be a evolutionary spandrel, but it > was still caused by something just as a architectural spandrel was caused > by something; in one case the need for intelligent behavior to get genes > into the next generation and in the other case the inherent shape of a > arch. And neither is more supernatural than a electron or a baseball. > > > A p-zombie would act the same way >> > > Yes, but if consciousness is a epiphenomenon just along for the ride then > a intelligent zombie can not exist. >
I don't see how that can be so. Maybe the epiphenomenon is only manifested in people whose name contains the letter 'J'. We could never tell the difference. > > >> > It's true that explanatory chains have to start and end somewhere >> > > Not necessarily, the chain of explanations might go on forever and for > that reason there may not be a theory of everything, but it is true that > the chain comes to a end or it doesn't, and in either case the God > hypothesis is of no help whatsoever. > That's true. I should have said that it can't be circular. > > > I'm not sure where you got God from, though. >> > > So in a discussion about ultimate reality and the nature of consciousness > you talk about a "supernatural extra" but don't understand why I inferred > from that you were talking about God. I don't believe you are being > entirely candid with me. > The supernatural extra was some sort of spirit attached to the brain. > > >> > So if we stop with consciousness, and consciousness is data being >> processed, then we need to take seriously any consequences of this, >> > > Yes. > > > which takes us back to comp, the UDA >> > > I'm not interested in the Universal Dance Association and unlike > "computationalism" there is no consistent meaning to "comp". As Kim Jones > said "Comp is obviously going to mean different things to different > people". > OK, but forgive me if I haven't reached that conclusion (yet) and still pursue the subject. -- 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/d/optout.
