Re: CHAT: mass-hallucination?

On Saturday, June 18, 2005, at 09:25 , Joe wrote:

> Ray Brown wrote:
[snip]

> Well, that really depends on how you define 'consciousness', here,
Nope.

> but
> the way I see it, since I'm percieving all of this, I must exist, or it
> wouldn't be percieved.
Methinks you are not being consistent in your logic, since ......

>>
>>>> 2) This consciousness is bound to a state or states that allow
>>>> knowledge
>>>> and thought. (This does not imply any veracity to that knowledge.)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hmm.  Maybe.  I'd suggest that thought is not neccesary.  Something
>>> could be feeding us something that we interpret as thought, for
>>> example.
Poor old Rene Descartes argued that since he was thinking all of this, he
must exist, or it would not be thought. Now you argue that something could
have been feeding him something he interpreted as thought.

_By exactly the same argument_ something could be feeding you something
that you interpret as perception.

>>
>> Quite so - something maybe feeding us something we interpret as
>> consciousness.
>>
>
> But if there is a 'me', as far as I see it, there is a consciousness.
So far you have not _proved_ that there is a 'you'.

>
>>>  Knowledge, however, of an instantaneous state, is neccesary.
>>
>>
>> Umm - so not 'cogito ergo sum', but rather 'scio ergo sum'     ;)
>
>
> Something like that. 'Sentio ergo sum', perhaps (Latin grammar not
> totally up to scratch)?
The grammar is correct. But _sentio_ is rather strange in that you began
this thread by questioning my senses. Why is your _sentire_ to be trusted
more than mine?

>> But why? If it is possible that something could be feeding us something
>> that we interpret as thought, then is it not equally possible that
>> something could be feeding us something that we interpret as knowledge of
>> an instantaneous state?
>>
>
> Totally.  But knowledge is not neccesarily true.  I'd say that something
> must have the capacity to 'know' the data that's being fed to it, just
> as a human (in the conventional world) 'knows' what its eyes are feeding
> to it.
So does a fly 'know' what its eyes are feeding to it?

This is not what I understand by knowledge.

>> At some stage we just have to make an assumption or two - an act of
>> belief.
>>  In Descartes' case his basic assumption was that he was thinking. In
>> both
>> Joe & Christopher's case that they have an individual consciousness.
>
>
> I don't know about 'individual'.  I've seen it suggested that it it's
> just one part of a greater consciousness.
Hitherto you appear to have been certain enough about yourself since you
have stated:
"A consciousness (namely, me) exists." (16th June)
"since I'm percieving all of this, I must exist...." (18th June)

Both _me_ and _I_ are first person *singular*

It is true it has been suggested that all is part of one greater
consciousness; if it is true, than then the _me_ in your statement above
"But if there is a 'me', as far as I see it, there is a consciousness" is
pure illusion.

Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com
===============================================
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language."         J.G. Hamann, 1760

Reply