Lee, Thanks for the great post it is very clear.
I think there is a flaw however in your argument. Here it is: You write: > If we can manipulate our conciousness via the use of electricity and > chemicals, then it is safe to assume that our conciousness uses both > electricity and chemicals in order to work, yes or no? In general, if by "use in order to work" you mean anything like what happens in steering linkages then I think your argument fails because it assumes the answer. Here is why: If our consciousnesses are like steering linkages and if we manipulate one end of the linkage the other end moves then it is safe to assume that our consciousness "uses one end of the linkage" where "uses one end of the linkage" means something like what happens generally in mechanical linkages. If however, our consciousnesses are not like steering linkages and if we manipulate one end of the linkage and the other end moves (consciousness is affected by material manipulation) then it is not safe to assume that our consciousness "uses one end of the linkage" where "uses one end of the linkage" means something like what happens generally in mechanical linkages. The possibility would still exist that if our consciousnesses are not like steering linkages and if we manipulate one end of the linkage and the other end moves (consciousness is affected by material manipulation) then it is due to some other process than "uses one end of the linkage" where "uses one end of the linkage" means what happens in linkages. It would then be due to an entirely different process that still allows the cause to be transmitted. Whether consciousness can be affected by material manipulation is given and has been known ever since the cavemen ducked a rock thrown at their heads. It does not rely on modern advances in neurology in the slightest. If you realize (start from the fact that) consciousness is not a mechanism then the fact that manipulating a mechanism affects it does not mean its a mechanism or that there is a *mechanical* linkage to it. Furthermore if you understand what a mechanism means to include roughly it "being an object" and you understand that "consciousness" means to be an "experiencing of the object" as *opposed* to the object itself. Then saying that consciousness is a mechanism is a contradiction in terms and no empirical question is needed to determine whether it is materially affected. It cannot be affected materially because what we mean by the term is not something either objective or material. That does not mean it cannot be manipulated by manipulating a physical object. It is obvious it can. It only means that the linkage need not be material indeed cannot be material. Consider the mechanism of your brain. If consciousness is an objective property of that mechanism then you are correct. But if consciousness is not an objective property (meaning that when say "consciousness" we mean something other than an objective property ) then describing the influence of matter on it in terms of a mechanism which is an interaction between two objects I further assert that what I mean by "my consciousness" is not some property of what I experience. Therefore it is not objective, therefore it is not material. Again thanks for the exasperated attempt at rigor and clarity. It is actually that kind of clarity that is necessary to sort this out On Sep 9, 6:20 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > Umm there seems some flaw here, now what is it? > > Ahhh yes! > > If I was to suggest that to manipulate where a car goes you need to > use the stearing wheel, that sounds about right yes? > > I was to further say that a stearing wheel does not in fact stear the > car, it only manipulates where the car can be steared, then maybe > you'll begin to see what is wrong with your statement above? > > If we can manipulate our conciousness via the use of electricity and > chemicals, then it is safe to assume that our conciousness uses both > electricity and chemicals in order to work, yes or no? > > Or put in another way. If I drink a glass of water and notice no > change in the way my conciousness is working then it is safe to > suggest that water is not a mechinism that conciousness uses in order > to work.(apart from our bodies dependancy upon it of course) > > On 5 Sep, 14:48, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > These experiments lend a lot of experimental support to > > > > consciousness being primarily chemical and electrical. > > > Actually they do not. > > > They just lend a lot of experimental support to consciousness being > > manipulate-able through chemical and electrical manipulation of ones > > brain. > > > But we already knew that. All it takes is to ingest a beer (or two), > > or -and I am not an advocate- ingest some LSD, and you will know. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
