X-Message-Number: 5111
From:  (David Stodolsky)
Subject: Consciousness is an invalid concept
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 95 18:05:06 +0100

Consciousness is an invalid concept according to 
K. V. Wilkes. (1992).
Psuche' versus the mind. [book chapter]
(see also 1988 work of same author)

The noun 'consciousness' appeared with its current meaning in 1678.
Before that, its etymological meaning of 'shared knowledge' was retained.
It seems Descartes's dualism ('I think, therefore I am'), which provided
for both a body and a soul, is responsible. Wilkes suggests Aristotle's
focus on capacities, traits, and states of character yields a superior
foundation for progress as compared to the Cartesian's dependences upon
mental events. Joynt (1981, p. 108) comments:

"Consciousness is like the Trinity; if it is explained so that you
understand it, it hasn't been explained correctly."


Aristotle argued that we become what we are by our actions and our
choices, and 'living well and doing well' will essentially involve
social activity, since 'man is a political creature, who by nature
lives with others'. (Wilkes 1992, p. 120)

The alternative led to fractionation of the sciences into those
studying the body and those studying the 'mind'. (Sheets-Johnstone
makes the same point in "Roots of Thinking" [1990,  Temple Univ. 
Press: Philadelphia].) 

"Descartes needed a foundation of certainty wherefrom to combat the 
sceptic.... This Descartes found in consciousness:

As to [the proposition] ... that nothing can be in me, that is, in my mind,
of which I an not conscious, I have proved it in the "Meditations", 
and it follows from the fact that the soul is distinct from the body and 
that its essence is to think. (Descartes 1641)." (Wilkes 1992, p. 114)


The 'brain in vat' paradox is the obvious dead end for Cartesianism.


dss


David S. Stodolsky      Euromath Center     University of Copenhagen
   Tel.: +45 38 33 03 30   Fax: +45 38 33 88 80 (C)


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5111