I guess it depends on one's definition. I agree that it is difficult to
prove that something doesn't ... exist/have materiality. It would also be a
challenge to you to do more than nfer that consciousness has
materiality/exists. My responding to noxious stimulation would prove that I
have sense receptors and my brain responds by trying to move my physical
self from the area of annoyance. That wouldn't demonstrate the materiality
of consciousness to me.
Geoff C
From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Lehrer and Whitman
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 09:59:11 -0800 (PST)
So how do you demonstrate the immateriality of consciousness? How do you
demonstrate the immateriality of anything at all?
WC
--- On Sun, 11/30/08, GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: Lehrer and Whitman
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Sunday, November 30, 2008, 8:49 AM
> Cheerskep: For one who emphasizes (sometimes on and on) the
> role of the mind
> in deciphering meaning from, at least, words, one would
> have thought that
> you would have thought that you would find Lehrer's
> reference to Stevens'
> line about "august imagination" at least somewhat
> sympathetic to your
> perceptions.
> Do you mean to deny the 'immateriality" of
> consciousness?
> Geoff C
>
>
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Reply-To: [email protected]
> >To: [email protected]
> >Subject: Lehrer and Whitman
> >Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 17:14:43 EST
> >
> >I'm afraid I truly began to object to Jonah Lehrer
> and to his book "Proust
> >Was a Neuroscientist" even before I got to a word
> Lehrer wrote. A mind that
> >would choose this quote from Wallace Stevens to be the
> first line of his
> >book
> >is
> >not a mind for me:
> >
> >"Reality is a product of the most august
> imagination."
> >
> >Sounds august itself, that line, doesn't it? It is,
> like much Stevens's
> >poetry, a dreary commonplace jumped up by the
> emperor's generalizations to
> >seem
> >like profound wisdom. Not only is it falsely inflated,
> it is, to most
> >anyone
> >who
> >considers it seriously, false period.
> >
> >We all have heard the commonplace expressed in homlier
> terms, like, "What
> >one
> >man sees as a glass half empty, another sees as a glass
> half full." The
> >pessimist and the optimist, addressing the same
> "facts", will interpret
> >them
> >very
> >differently. The underlying notion is true enough but
> utterly trite. Do you
> >feel the "reality is" that the life of man is
> solitary, poor, nasty,
> >brutish
> >and
> >short? I don't. We have different attitudes,
> energy-levels, "livers" --
> >thus
> >producing what Stevens calls our imaginations.
> >
> >Where Stevens's cliche merits being called flatly
> false, is, say, when you
> >step in a hole and break your leg, or get cancer, of
> your spouse's head is
> >crushed by a falling rock. That rock is, in most
> people's vocabulary,
> >"real";
> >it is
> >not the product of anyone's imagination. Beware of
> anyone who begins a
> >sentence, "Reality isb&"
> >
> >From his "Prelude" (Oy!), I judge Lehrer an
> adroit and mellifluous writer
> >whose mind is, as Whitman's was, as romantically
> drippy and formless as
> >melted
> >chocolate.
> >
> >I have never enjoyed people who revel in their
> inconsistency -- as Whitman
> >did. Lehrer differs from Whitman: Lehrer does not
> realize he is
> >inconsistent.
> >
> >
> >The one line from his "Prelude" I hope you
> will remember as you read on in
> >his book is:
> >
> >"Our science is incomplete, no map of matter will
> ever explain the
> >IMMATERIALITY of our consciousness."
> >
> >
> >
> >**************
> >Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the
> NEW
> >AOL.com.
> (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&
> >ncid=emlcntaolcom00000002)
