Theism is not the only alternative to materialism

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Now, what conclusions can you draw from P1 alone? I already stated it:

C5. Therefore there can be no entity who believes it is conscious by a process X, unless that process is consciousness per se.

Originally Posted by Ian
Do you think that C5 is a necessary truth?

Paul
I have no idea, because I do not know what definitions you are assuming for belief, consciousness, and consciousness per se (if different from consciousness).

For crying out loud! How many times must I copy and paste before you believe me when I say that consciousness is impossible to define??

Only that which is measurable (i.e physical) is possible to define. I mean by consciousness, qualia -- again how many times must I copy and paste before you believe me??

And when I say consciousness per se, this is not different from consciousness. I'm merely saying it is consciousness in and of itself which necessarily is causally efficacious.

Now I ask again:

Do you think that C5 is a necessary truth??

[David Bailey]

I thought I had already backed Paul into a corner where he acknowledged that consciousness is (at least currently) impossible to define. I guess he quantum-tunnelled his way out!

David