[Wittrs] Re: Cayuse- Consciousness bodied and disembodied

  • From: "BruceD" <blroadies@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 01:50:33 -0000

> --- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Cayuse" z.z7@ wrote:

> Joe's criticism pertained to the word and not its referent.
> I can't make any sense of that criticism.

I never read Joe closely enough to be helpful. He is still around, why
don't we ask him

> Regarding the referent for the word "I", that would be the physical

In part, yes, but there are aspects of us that have no physical
reference, e.g., loyalty, etc. Thus I agree...

> the claim that the physical organism"experiences the data of
> is one that has no application

because, as I said, the "I" often doesn't refer to the physical
organism. So we agree. Where do we disagree? Do you hold that experience
can't be accounted for objectively? If so, why? Hmm. From another Post.
We may be closer than we think

> I have no problem with the use of the word "I" to denote the physical
> organism as it refers to itself, and with the word "conscious" to
> responsivity to environmental stimuli, but I don't see any application
> the claim that the physical organism is "consciously experiencing" the
> supplied by its sense organs.

Yes, it is me, Bruce, that is conscious, not the physical body of Bruce
and there is no of getting from sense data to consciousness unless you
hold that sense data cause the brain to cause consciousness. I've spent
the last two years dissecting that possibility.

Bruce asked:
> > How about a fictional Bruce, neither dead nor alive? When you say
"he is loyal", are you referring to his body?

> Yes, as long as the fictional Bruce is alive in the fiction.

So fictional bodies are physical?

I think we should talk about what is and is not physical.


Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/

Other related posts: