Colin Hales wrote:
>>From: email@example.com [mailto:everything-
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brent Meeker
>>Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 9:49 AM
>>Subject: Re: evidence blindness
>>Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
>>>>the fact that
>>>>intelligent behaviour is third person observable but consciousness is
>>>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
>>>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
>>>the entire process? There is an assumption at work....
>>>"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
> 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.
> 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
find I am instead thinking of this or that particular thing, and not
itself. Consciousness can only be consciousness *of* something.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at