Re: CHAT: mass-hallucination?

On Friday, June 17, 2005, at 05:07 , Joe wrote:

> Christopher Wright wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 19:00:43 +0100, Joe <joe@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I'd suggest two or three axioms for the universe that we can be sure of:
>>>
>>> 1)A consciousness (namely, me) exists.
>>> 2)There is some ability to process data (although 'process' implies
>>> time, which, again, rather lacks evidence), which leads to the way I
>>> percieve the world.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Actually, I'd refine that to:
>> 1) A consciousness (namely, me) exists.
If one is questioning absolutely everything, then just how can you be
certain that a consciousness actually exists, still less that that
consciousness is you?

>> 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.
Quite so - something maybe feeding us something we interpret as
consciousness.

>  Knowledge, however, of an instantaneous state, is neccesary.
Umm - so not 'cogito ergo sum', but rather 'scio ergo sum'     ;)

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?

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.

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