Le 27-juil.-05, à 03:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :

Now look at science.

We do correlations of perceptual artefacts = _contents_ of phenomenal consiousness to the point of handing out _Nobel prizes_ for depictions of correlated artefacts of our phenomenal fields.


we deny phenomenal consciousness? Declare it unassailable by science? Delude ourselves that these descriptions actually contain causal necessity?

Who does that? I don't think that, in this list, you will find someone denying phenomenal consciousness. Some have never stopped to insist on its fundamental importance, notably through the distinction from first and third person point of view.

But I don't understand what you mean by causal necessity, especially when you say that:

We have phenomenal consciousness, the most obvious, egregious screaming evidence of the operation of that causal necessity - the same causal necessity that results in the desciption F = MA being found by Newton...

I tend to believe in some causal necessity related to consciousness, but I have no evidence that F=MA has anything to do with that. I guess you are postulating the existence of some "primitive" physical universe, aren't you?

See my url for links toward a proof that such a postulate is epistemologically (or ontologically with OCCAM + some other more technical results) contradictory with the computationalist hypothesis (which is my working hypothesis).

I don't pretend that this is obvious, but the missing 50% of science is not phenomenological consciousness (in this list).



Reply via email to