Picture of the author
Topic :
Thread Created at Invalid date | Started by
Number of Post in this thread: 2Please Sign In to comment on this Thread
richwil replied 15 years ago (Jan 13th 2009, 4:03:01 pm)
Hi Brent Agreed there should be room for several shades of dualism right up to full-blown Cartesian dualism. The differences can then be teased out in sub camps. Oops: the "i think..." text was my personal comment and wasn't meant to be included in the camp statement. Apologies. We live and learn :) Richard
Brent_Allsop replied 15 years ago (Jan 11th 2009, 12:40:45 am)
Richwil, Thanks for the work on this camp and your proposed new version: http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/23/7?as_of_mode=as_of&as_of_date=09/01/18 You are proposing a title change from John's version: Consciousness is Real, Representative, and Brain-linked to Consciousness is Real, Representational, and Brain(or equivalent)-dependent. And you added other text arguing for a more brain dependent statement. I am happy to hear you are in my camp. I am in no way a Cartesian dualist, or any other kind of mystic or supernaturalist. I even still have troubles with brane or string theory ideas and see no need for them. However, John Smythies, Stephen Harrison, people that are way smarter than I, and surely many other very motivated, intelligent, and possibly religious people are in a different camp than us. Here is a comment from Stephen Harrison about the 'bran linked' change proposed by John which I very much agree with: <<<< I second John's change. It leaves more room within which to maneuver -i.e it admits dualist options more gracefully >>>> We must remember the goal of canonizer.com is to concisely represent and survey all beliefs, not just our own. So at the higher level super camps, we want to be more open to more beliefs. Perhaps it may become necessary for us to create sub camps to distinguish between those of us that are dualists, qualophobes, or whatever. John and Stephen have converted me to the camp that believes we should 'admit dualist' and any other model of consciousness that is compatible with a representational view. I think this is the most compelling and important idea to have at the root of any camp structure. It is very important that we work to get anyone in the representationalist camp possible. Then we can create supporting sub camps to adequately represent our differences including any kind of metaphysical dualism, or qualophile vs qualophobe or whatever. There is also a technical problem with your proposed version. You use selfish terminology like "I think" and "I am open". But camp statements are meant to be inclusive of, or voice for all members of the camp. The correct terminology to use is phrases like "We think" instead of "I think". Stephen Harrison and hopefully others have indicated they are working on a new versions of statements to be even more open to 'dualists' or any other possible representationalists. If you will propose a new version that fixes some of the current problems, and indicate you are willing to help us construct a statement for this representational level to be more inclusive, I will not object to this current proposed change. Otherwise, I do intend on objecting to it before it goes live. We can always include our more specific beliefs in sub camps. Brent Allsop