Quote:
Originally Posted by Interesting Ian  First of all you make it sound as if I subscribe to the position that physical laws govern. Please don't quote me out of context. |
No, you suggest that physical laws must govern if you are wrong. That's not true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Interesting Ian There's no purpose in reading Newton's book. |
His book is a derivation of his laws. The laws of motion did not appear out of thin air. But you couldn't be expected to know that.
We seem to be talking about different meanings of "law", so I'll drop it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Interesting Ian Our ability to voluntarily move our bodies. |
Out of curiosity, where are the limits of your identity? What would it take for you to no longer be you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Interesting Ian Then you're not using the term in its correct sense. |
Cool. That's awesome. You're totally the ace. I kowtow before your magnificence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Interesting Ian 1. If it were true that my consciousness is not causally efficacious and instead the totality of my behaviour is governed by physical laws, then my conviction that I am conscious is wholly caused by determined events in the brain which form links in a chain of physical cause and effect. |
Aside from the bit about governing, then I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Interesting Ian 2. Thus my conviction that I am conscious has nothing to do with the fact that I am conscious since my consciousness is causally inefficacious. Instead, as stated, my conviction I am conscious is a result of the causal chain of physical cause and effect in the brain. |
Your conviction of consciousness has everything to do with the fact that you are conscious. Conviction necessarily arises from consciousness, so the physical causation from which arose consciousness in the first place may be extended to enable conviction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Interesting Ian 3) But I know without a shadow of a doubt that I am conscious since there is no distinction between seeming to be conscious and really being conscious. Moreover it is very clear that it is my consciousness which provides this incorrigible knowledge, for, if "I" were not conscious, "I" could not think "I" am, since, not being conscious, "I" could never actual think at all! |
Wow. You're asserting certain knowledge. I'll have to wrap my head around that for a moment.
Have you ever been wrong? Or are you always right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Interesting Ian In addition I am not prepared to start lecturing on all topics under the Sun in this one thread. |
Don't bring something up if you're not prepared to talk about it. You want to show off your knowledge? Then do it. Don't flash it like a police badge and expect me to assume the position. If it's not relevant, don't mention it.