Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA20067 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 2 Oct 2000 11:41:15 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A5C@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: the conscious universe Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 11:38:50 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Your train of thought here does not presume you know nothing about pencils,
otherwise, why are you so interested in the graphite? Indeed your train of
illogic is based on a knowledge of exactly what pencils are for, which is
why it seems correct to you.
If you truly didn't know what it was, or what purpose it served- even
whether or not it had a purpose, there's no reason to focus on the graphite
at all- not until you pick it up and press it against some kind of surface-
that's if you don't stick the pointy bit in your ear to use as an ear
picker, or use it to stab someone (alternative uses that many children have
found for pencils).
You deliberately deny the possibility of actually holding and testing the
pencil for possible use, and thus you deny rational testing. Skepticism is
once again the most sensible approach in such circumstances. Besides, if
you can't pick it up, then the possibility that graphite runs the whole way
through it is entirely irrelevant- since if you can't pick it up you can't
use it, so you've no reason to care about its properties.
Yet again, your example is specious, but you pre-empt the easy demolition of
it as not understanding. Yet again you confuse not understanding with not
believing.
Vincent
> ----------
> From: Robin Faichney
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Monday, October 2, 2000 9:55 am
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: the conscious universe
>
> On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 03:51:38PM -0400, Wade T.Smith wrote:
> > Hi Robin Faichney --
> >
> > >Show me the flaw in my analysis.
> >
> > >My contention is that [something] is only evident in parts, but when
> > >the [something] is fully analysed, it makes more sense to attribute it
> to
> > >the whole.
> >
> > Show me what is useful in that statement.
>
> Assume, for the moment, I have never encountered a pencil before, never
> heard or read anything about them, and do not know what they are for.
> I can only see graphite at each end of this thing. Should I take the
> skeptical position, and assume it exists only where I can see it? I say
> no, the more elegant theory takes into account the fact that it looks
> as if it might run throughout the length; I can imagine (very vaguely)
> a straightforward manufacturing process to produce it in that form;
> whatever it's used for, that would allow it to remain useful if it wore
> down; and, finally, I have no reason to believe that the graphite does
> not run through it. On the balance of probabilities, and assuming that
> I can't actually lay my hands on it and break it to find out, I should
> take it that there's just one piece of graphite, end-to-end. The
> skeptical position is the less rational one.
>
> I'm suggesting that similar considerations apply to consciousness.
> I might be wrong[1], but if you (or anyone else) thinks this suggestion
> is simply silly, then you don't understand it.
>
> I'm not claiming to have originated this, by the way. It is known as
> "panpsychism", and is discussed, for example, by Thomas Nagel in his
> book Mortal Questions.
>
> [1] Actually, as the location of consciousness is not a matter of
> objective fact, I can't be wrong (or right) about that, but I could be
> wrong about the utility of taking this view.
>
> --
> Robin Faichney
>
> ===============================================================
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
>
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 11:42:45 BST