Colin Hales wrote: > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: [email protected] [mailto:everything- >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brent Meeker >>Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 9:49 AM >>To: [email protected] >>Subject: Re: evidence blindness >> >> >>Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: >> >>>>the fact that >>>>intelligent behaviour is third person observable but consciousness is >>>>not. >>>> >>>>Stathis Papaioannou >>> >>> >>>OK. Let me get this straight. Scientist A stares at something, say X, >>>with consciousness. A sees X. Scientist A posits evidence of X from a >>>third person viewpoint. Scientist A confers with Scientist B. Scientist >> >>B >> >>>then goes and stares at X and agrees. Both of these people use >>>consciousness to come to this conclusion. >>> >>>Explicit Conclusion : "Yep, theres an X!" >>> >>>Yet there's no evidence of consciousness?.... that which literally >> >>enabled >> >>>the entire process? There is an assumption at work.... >>> >>>"SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE" >>>and >>>"CONTENTS OF CONSCIOUSNESS" >>> >>>Are NOT identities. >>> >>>When you 'stare' at anything at all you have evidence of consciousness. >> >>A SIDWINDER missile 'stares' at the exhaust of a jet aircraft. Does that >>make it >>conscious? >> > > > > This is a mind-blowingly irrelevant diversion into the usual weeds that > fails to comprehend the most basic proposition about ourselves by an > assumption which is plain wrong. You presume that the missile stares and > then attribute it to humans as equivalent. Forget the bloody missile. I am > talking about YOU. The evidence you have about YOU within YOU. > > Take a look at your hand. That presentation of your hand is one piece of > content in a visual field (scene). Mind is literally and only a collection > of (rather spectacular) phenomenal scenes. > > Something (within your brain material) generates the visual field in which > there is a hand. You could cognise the existence of a hand _without_ that > scene (this is what blindsight patients can do - very very badly, but they > can do it). But you don't. No, nature goes to a hell of a lot of trouble to > create that fantastic image. > > You have the scene. Take note of it. It gives you ALL your scientific > evidence. This is an intrinsically private scene and you can't be objective > without it! You would have nothing to be objective about. > > PROOF > Close your eyes and tell me you can be more scientific about your hand than > you could with them open. This is so obvious. > > To say consciousness is not observable is completely absolutely wrong. We > observe consciousness permanently. It's all we ever do! It's just not within > the phenomenal fields, it IS the phenomenal fields. > > Got it? > > Colin Hales
Most of the time I'm observing something else. When I try to observe consciouness, I find I am instead thinking of this or that particular thing, and not consciousness itself. Consciousness can only be consciousness *of* something. Got that? Brent Meeker --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
