Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!utgpu!pindor
From: pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: Significance of consciousness
Message-ID: <D4vMrs.2IG@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCC Public Access
References: <departedD3vKy5.M3B@netcom.com> <kovskyD4D4uy.1nn@netcom.com> <D4o8rs.92F@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <kovskyD4q2Aq.EAy@netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 18:16:40 GMT
Lines: 47

In article <kovskyD4q2Aq.EAy@netcom.com>, Bob Kovsky <kovsky@netcom.com> wrote:
>In the previous article,
>Andrzej Pindor quoted from me and responded:
>>>
>>Could you give an example of a "non-material" experience and an example of it
>>having "consequential effect" on material bodies?
>
>	The purpose that motivates me when I write a message on Usenet 
>has effects on the keys that are pressed.
>
Are you suggesting that the "purpose" have no basis in physical processes in
your brain? Are you implying a some sort of immaterial soul? Not that I'll
attempt to disprove this, but if so then the discussion is fruitless, since
science has no tools to tackle such objects.
>>
>>>	In addition to the common-sense fact that non-material experience 
>>                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>has a consequential effect on material bodies, consider the following.  
>>>The construction of conscious experience would appear to require a 
>>>substantial apparatus.  Why waste all that material and energy on an 
>>>"epiphenomenon?"
>>
>>A lot of "common-sense" facts turn out to be false when looked at more closely.
>
>	I don't know of any "facts" that turn out to be false, where 
>"facts" are the most primitive experiences.  I do understand that more 
>refined interpretations and theories are often discarded as false.
>
I am not sure what you mean by "the most primitive experiences". If by these 
you mean "experiences which cannot be false", then we are back to square one.
Otherwise, how about fatamorgana, for instance? Or people hearing "voices"?
"Most primitive experiences" also suggest that for two objects to influence
one another, they have to be in a physical contact with one another. Hence when
Newton proposed his theory of gravitation he had problems with the fact that 
his theory implied "interaction at a distance", which went against the above
mentioned "common-sense" notion. Which has turned out to be false - his theory
or "common-sense" (the most primitive experiences)?
>-- 
>    kovsky@netcom.com   |  Materials available by anonymous ftp
>                        |  At ftp.netcom.com/pub/fr/freedom

Andrzej
-- 
Andrzej Pindor                        The foolish reject what they see and 
University of Toronto                 not what they think; the wise reject
Instructional and Research Computing  what they think and not what they see.
pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca                           Huang Po
