[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[Case]

> [Case]
> Can you suggest anything that would allow "me" to conclude positively 
> that any one or any thing outside of "myself" has subjective awareness?

> [Micah]:
> Your senses.

[Ham]
By "conclude positively" I assume you mean ""prove objectively".

[Case]
No I mean conclude positively by whatever means you like.

[Ham]
You see, that's the odd thing about subjective awareness.  It's 
subjective -- proprietary to the subject.
All you can know about the world "outside of yourself" is objective. 

[Case]
See that is the odd thing about objectivity. It can not be known except
through consensus with others. 

[Ham]
Being-aware is your cognizant awareness configuring "being" from 
value-sensibility.  Therefore, any conclusion that you make is 
intellectualized from that objective knowledge.  

[Case]
That first sentence is classic Hamish. I have no idea how to parse that
sentence so that it means anything at all. Only you could follow it with the
word "therefore".

[Ham}
The proof of beingness is your own sensibility.

[Case]
I am a big fan of Descartes on that one.
  
[Ham]
The only proof that a particular being is aware is 
its knowing that it senses.  Which means that, ultimately, all proof is 
subjective.

Fascinating paradox, isn't it?

[Case]
I am not a fan of Descartes effort to move beyond the "cogito". In fact I
actually don't know how, outside of a leap of faith. But I do not find it
paradoxical in the least.