"Black Bush" of course, Neil - with the exception of Van Morrison and Seamus Heaney, the best that ever came out of Ulster!
Francis On 10 Sep., 20:53, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Water, water everywhere, but nor a fine drop of Protestant whiskey to > drink! We could lapse into a whole load of 'Bushmills' here and > become very convinced by 3-brain theory ... perhaps this state is > known as 'three sheets to the Orn'? > > On 10 Sep, 17:29, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > IF there are those here who are well versed in the brain, perhaps > > someone could go over the 3 brains we have? Thanks. > > > On Sep 10, 8:09 am, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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.- > > > > > Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
