Ourcellves? (Identity)

by romansh ⌂ @, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 16:44 (3877 days ago) @ David Turell


> > Romansh: If we were to positively identify some "magical" energy (for a want of a better word) that is our supposed consciousness, this would be no problem for a materialist, she would just add it to the menagerie of energies that already exist. What would be a problem for a materialist if this magical energy was truly magical and was not described by the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
> 
> How do you define conscious thought as energy? It is not the sum of the energies of the neurons that create it.-That's how I might define it ... perhaps other than not what it seems.-But there is an inherent fallacy in the sum of the energies of the neurons that create it.-Imagine someone deprived from all sensory input from a very early age. This person will not develop a sense of self I would argue. It is our sensory inputs that shape our neural pathways together with other bodily functions.-Looking them separately is a fallacy ... as any lumper should understand.
Unless you really are a splitter and you have a realtively coarse split at the body?


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum