From: John K Clark (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Mar 07 2008 - 11:30:09 MST
Matt Mahoney, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> The argument fails because it is based
> on the unproven assumption that
> consciousness exists.
Unproven!? What sort of objective proof would take precedence over
direct experience? Even if I had an objective proof that you donít find
it unpleasant when you stick your hand in a fire I still think youíd
pull your hand out at the first opportunity.
The religious person would be justified to laughing at me if I said he
didnít really think god existed, just as I would laugh at you if you
said I was not conscious. The only difference between me and the snake
handler is that thinking god exists is not god, but thinking about
consciousness is consciousness because thatís all consciousness is,
thinking about stuff.
> Your brain is a computer.
> It will believe whatever it is programmed to believe.
So Iím not conscious, I just believe Iím conscious, but there is no
objective reason to believe even that; I donít believe Iím conscious, I
just believe I believe Iím conscious, but there is no objective reason
to believe even that; I donít believe I believe Iím conscious, I just
believe I believe I believe Iím conscious. but there is no objective
reason to believe even that [Ö]
Objectivity be damned! I have a subjective proof that at least one
consciousness exists in the universe; and donít tell me consciousness is
an illusion because both things are subjective phenomena, if
consciousness doesnít exist then illusions donít either.
John K Clark
-- John K Clark email@example.com -- http://www.fastmail.fm - One of many happy users: http://www.fastmail.fm/docs/quotes.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:02 MDT