According to Harris, if consciousness means self-consciousness, then it cannot be identified with the human body. It's just not logical. Animals also possess a physical body, but not rational consciousness. Humans have self-consciousness.
---In [email protected], <noozguru@...> wrote : A lot of this just leads to a bunch of intellectual masturbation. Fun mental exercise maybe but I could care less. Maharishi made a huge mistake by over intellectualizing enlightenment whereas other paths simply just deal with moksha (liberation). It's not complicated: "Knowledge is structured in consciousness." This is why I'm a big advocate of "village tantra." Non sequitur. Undefined. On 05/03/2015 01:20 PM, Duveyoung wrote: 1. Everyone agrees they exist. 2. Your turn . . . . I'm fairly sure no one here agrees with Descartes. But, hmmmmm. I am fairly sure that there'd be a great disagreement about what actually is a thought, so we'd have to have that sussed out firstly before we put Descartes before us horses....heh. Even if it is argued that we are but constructs in an immense cosmic computer, still, that is a form of existence, but the term "alive" now becomes debatable. Hmmmmm. By the way: Is a ghost alive? I agree that I exist as an non-entity -- a semantic designation, but it's about as ephemeral as I can get with words.
