> On 29 Apr 2019, at 18:11, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Monday, 29 April 2019 17:03:53 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 29 Apr 2019, at 08:44, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List >> <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: >> >> You cannot invalidate the fact that consciousness is all there is, because >> for any fact X that you assume that you discover, that X is a thought in >> consciousness. > > But I don’t see why this invalidate that there would be something more than > my consciousness, for example the possible consciousness of some other. > > > Yes, there are other consciousness. But that's all, because existence itself > can only be ontologically subjective.
Why? In particular, if you grant the consciousness of other person, that consciousness is not personal-subjective, for me. I need some amount of “independent reality” from me to allow some other to exist. > > >> I don't see where I borrow anything from materialist ideas. Evolution is >> deducible directly from looking at qualia. There are no "bodies" that >> evolve, but consciousnesses that evolve. > > That is what you have to elaborate. I can interpret this favourably (in the > mechanist frame) or not. It is a bit too much vague, as I expect, actually, > from a theory which assumes consciousness. > > Just look at human psychology. It is solely for survival and reproduction. > All our emotion qualia serve these purposes. ? (That would make consciousness not being fundamental, contrary to your axiom) > For example look at the users which their beliefs are being threatened how > they become aggressive. This is because instinctively they feel that their > alpha male domination is being threatened by another male, so they jump to > kill him. So all these emotion qualia couldn't have otherwise appeared just > by evolution. Why? > All the evolutionary history is included in present day qualia that we have. > If you want to find out how the Earth was 1 billion years ago, ask yourself > what does the smell of pineapple means for example, and you will find that > the quale of pineapple smell has a particular evolutionary reason why it is > the way it is. ? That is unclear to me. I know you will not do it, but formalising in first order logic would clarify a lot. Now, you can’t do that if mechanism is true, because consciousness is necessarily not a formal concept, but a semantical one, and the whole point of formalising is to not start from a semantic. You seem to condemn yourself into a fuzzy theory. Frankly, consciousness and matter is what I want to explain/understand, and the mechanist assumption makes possible to build a testable theory, so let us do the test, and only invoke things like god, consciousness, reality, or alien in last ressort, if the experience violate all expressible theories. Bruno > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
