On 9/21/2014 2:30 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> And I also know for a fact that those very same chemicals
degrade my
ability to behave intelligently, and that's exactly what you'd
expect if
Darwin was right.
> Again, all I believe that can be said about this is that these
chemicals change the contents of your experience.
ALL?!! If you subtract the contents of your experience from your
consciousness there
is nothing remaining.
Ever tried an isolation tank?
Here's the crux of the equivocation on "conscious" that bothers me. Bruno apparently
wants to define consciousness as a potentiality for self-reference (a fixed point of
reference). This easily maps into theorems of provability in axiomatic systems. And
that's fine. BUT he then also wants to say everybody knows what consciousness is and it's
existence is indubitable. Those two don't got together. Hume remarked that whenever he
was aware he was aware of some content. It quite possible to doubt that there is any such
thing as direct of experience of consciousness without content. That axiomatic systems
admit such reference is a feature of language which can seem to refer to itself.
Brent
--
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.
