Hi everyone (Fintan and Mary),
This months topic is very coincidential for me. I'm so glad to have
discovered you. I have had this crazy theory in my mind for almost a
year...
I have tried to prove the impossibility of defining consciousness in
terms of matter. Because of the magnitude of my assertions, I'm sure
there is a logical flaw in this argument. Damned if I can figure out
what it is...
Step 1. There exists a unique, solitary and indivisible entity called
“I”.
Going back to our metaphysics, be not a scientist but an experiencer.
Yell out loud. Ask yourself, “Did I hear that?”. Now take deep, deep
breath and ask yourself, “Did I feel that?”. Count backwards from 10
to 1 and ask yourself, “Did I think that”. These instructions are so
trivial that you probably did not follow them. The existence of “I” is
obvious!
Pay attention to the uniqueness and indivisibility of “I”. There are,
of course, billions of possible experiences resulting from billions of
possible interactions of body and reality. Yet, all these experiences
belong to a solitary “I”. The “one” hears one’s voice is the “one” that
feels one’s breath is the “one” that hears one’s thoughts. That is why
we refer to someone as some “one”.
Step 2. Reality is made only of matter and energy.
Standard SOM assumption.
Step 3. “I” is defined/identified by matter and energy.
If “I” exists and reality is made of only matter and energy then “I”
must somehow be defined by matter and energy. Need I say more?
Step 4. A tiny unit of matter and energy does not contain “I”.
Think of something as tiny as an H20 (water) molecule. A water molecule
has matter (and energy in the form of temperature). It would be absurd
to think of “I” as a water molecule. If true, the molecule could be
removed from my body and “I” would necessarily be removed. People do
not lose consciousness, control of their body, or die if a tiny molecule
is extracted from or naturally expelled by their body.
Over a lifetime, it is likely that the matter in the body has – perhaps
several times over – been replaced. What was once life-giving oxygen in
my brain has likely been exhaled.
Step 5. “I” can only be identified/defined by a biological system
(recipe) of matter and energy not specific to any part.
If “I” am not a tiny part of the body, “I” must be some synergetic
collection of tiny parts. For example, “I” might have been created by
(and defined as) a collection of oxygen, DNA, blood, and proteins fused
together within a temperature range. “I” am defined by some recipe of
“life” that scientists may -- or may not -- one day discover..
Step 6. Anything only defined as a recipe can be reproduced.
Because “I” am not specific to any tiny part, “I” am reproducible.
Hypothetically, one could be lucky enough to collect all the same
molecules that originally gave me life and use them to reconstruct
another me. One might even collect molecules from different times in my
life and assemble several me’s.
Step 7. Step 6. Contradicts step 1.
Step 6 says that the definition of “I” allows for several “I”s, but
Step1 states that there is only one “I”. Any materialist definition of
I necessarily fails. We have to drop #2!
Intuitively, something has to be me, but there can only be one of this
something. The only reasonable assumption to drop Step 2. Reality is
not only made of matter. This is harmonious with Pirisig and makes
sense with stuff I have studied of the mind. But I can't have been the
first to prove this!!?? I am going nuts on this!
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:44 BST