Re: CHAT: mass-hallucination?
|Date:||Sunday, June 19, 2005, 7:36|
Ray Brown wrote:
>>>>> 2) This consciousness is bound to a state or states that allow
>>>>> 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
> 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
> 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
>>> At some stage we just have to make an assumption or two - an act of
>>> In Descartes' case his basic assumption was that he was thinking. In
>>> 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.