Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: CHAT: mass-hallucination?

From:Joe <joe@...>
Date:Sunday, June 19, 2005, 7:36
Ray Brown wrote:

>>> >>>>> 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.
If I don't exist, no-one's feeding me anything. What do you mean by perception? I agree totally that there could be a whole world fed to me, but then there has to be a me to be fed to in the first place, to observe the data being fed to him.
> >> >>>> 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? >
I'm not saying my senses are trustworthy. Simply that things are sensed, and there must be something to sense them.
>>> 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. >
Well, that's just a matter of terminology. I just can't think of a better word.
>>> 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. >
Well, the thing is, I can't prove the existence of anything further than myself. There may well be innumerable things beyond that, but they're unprovable. If I don't exist, then nothing exists to percieve what I percieve. But it is percieved, so I exist. If you want, of course, you can substitute me for you, since I'm reasonably certain that you believe yourself to exist.


Ray Brown <ray.brown@...>