I have not yet met the man, but he does do a lot of his TV work with my company so I guess it is only a matter of time. Umm what would I say to him ummmm?
On 5 Oct, 15:33, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. ;-)- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
