> > Bruno merely asserts that nobody can mistake the fact that they exist. >
Some people do, but it's considered pathological. But Bruno does more than merely assert this. He then uses the same word, "conscious" in a different, technical sense as a potential property of an axiomatic system. And then he applies conclusions drawn from the technical sense to common sense meaning. This is isn't necessarily wrong, but as an argument it leaves a big gap. Brent A potential property of an axiomatic system is the evolution of conscious human beings who know they exist or are otherwise pathological. Richard On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 4:03 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 9/22/2014 12:07 AM, Kim Jones wrote: > >> On 22 Sep 2014, at 3:21 pm, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> That's why he can say consciousness is all-or-nothing (potentialities >>> are all-or-nothing). That's why he thinks an infant is more conscious than >>> an adult - it has more potential (but less realization). That's why he >>> thinks losing all your memories would leave you with the same consciousness. >>> >>> That's all follows from his definition and it's OK, although it's not >>> the common meaning of "conscious". What's not OK is to then rely on the >>> intuition that everybody knows what consciousness is and that no one can >>> seriously doubt it's existence. Those statements are true of common usage >>> of "conscious", but not necessarily true of Bruno's definition. >>> >>> Brent >>> >> Are we not conflating slightly (to be) conscious - the fact of being >> aware and sensate; experiencing "being" as it were.....with "consciousness" >> that woolly philosophical football? I think even in comman usage we don't >> do that. I am conscious of this or that. My consciousness is kind of my >> whole psyche (whatever that is - could be the whole universe or a lotus >> blossum or whatever). >> >> Bruno merely asserts that nobody can mistake the fact that they exist. >> > > Some people do, but it's considered pathological. But Bruno does more > than merely assert this. He then uses the same word, "conscious" in a > different, technical sense as a potential property of an axiomatic system. > And then he applies conclusions drawn from the technical sense to common > sense meaning. This is isn't necessarily wrong, but as an argument it > leaves a big gap. > > Brent > > To be conscious is to experience "being". My "consciousness" on the other >> hand, is the "me" the self, the subject, the "I" - you could probably say >> "soul" if you wanted to allude to the fact that this platonic thing you are >> is immortal. >> > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
