If we changed the debate from consciousness to some other terms, what Pat says would also hold true - perhaps of a general individual trying to establish self in social context. A good example of play with language unseating a singular use of a term. I only met Dawkins once and was only able to test his knowledge of cricket (thin). He'd just written a book with 'Reweaving the Rainbow' in it which read like 'The Moon's a Balloon' without the wit and with all the name-dropping. I think I might like Dawkers if I really knew him, but he seems like an opportunist regurgitating the same old stuff from this distance (he might do better to wonder publicly why the majority population remains unknowledgeable enough to need his endless repeats). I remember buying EF Schumacher's 'Guide for the Perplexed' years ago - needless to say, it was perplexing and utter dross, moaning on about some Swedish revelations and a fat, jolly woman living only on daily Eucharist. We are undoubtedly all here to be so ripped-off from time to time. I would guess Pat we have been ripped off by much baser 'over-definition' than consciousness has suffered. As you know, this tunes me into wondering why basic politics is so pitiful ... (several wasted years of revelatory books later!) ... many religions have suggested there can be nothing fair or just until we make such a material condition of living. The questions should be about how to live in plenty now we know we can establish this (I suspect most still do not realise this for quite obvious reasons). Poverty is related in very nasty ways to motivation, and social position to poverty rather than ability (having discovered we are animals we might do better at noting this is true in many animal societies). We could also be conscious that 'leadership' tends to out in nasty ways and we can be conscious of this. I am not sure in any of this what leads what or what causes what. Some tiny 'mental' shift might be enough - but this in turn may only arise at a certain 'material' point - perhaps there are thresholds? In my book. most of 'us' have died long before we get to 'travel'. Just to return to the Dawk - there have been how, why, who, whose, whats and other questions in the traditional models of philosophy long accepted. There is no argued case that 'how' dominates in science that holds sway, even in knowledge justification based in scientific findings and methods. I would probably want to dispense with god in epistemology more than him, because theories of everything tend not to explain much how if any. The argument here is more with the megalomaniac Hegel wanting (even claiming) that to know anything you have to know everything. Dawkins should be using his influence on foreign policy idiots, not chanting African bishops.
On 5 Oct, 14:31, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 3 Oct, 13:14, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > It's always possible we live in 'Delusionville' rather than as > > conscious, sentient beings. This would explain a lot of problematic > > nastiness like Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher and the underperformance > > of Warrington Rugby League Football Club. However, as Roger Penrose > > points out, there seems no Earthly reason why evolution should have > > developed consciousness (assuming it has, as there is a potential > > chicken and egg here) as much complex happens other than in what we > > have named consciousness as an emergent property of human brains. > > Neural density is higher in parts of the brain we don't associate with > > consciousness as such an emergent property. After all, evolution > > tends to proceed by killing species off, job presumably done. > > > So 'why' consciousness? > > More importantly, Whose consciousness? If you say 'my consciousness', > you have already made a division/separation between your concept of > self and the consciousness--that relationship being that you consider > the consciousness 'yours'. So if the consciousness isn't you, as > evidenced by the separation made by considering it 'your > consciousness', whose is it? Once you've determined whose > consciousness it is you are discussing, its purpose might be more > readily available or more obviously discernable. ;-) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
