Colin Hales wrote: >>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 >> > > > Absolutely. Intrinsic intentionality is what phenomenal fields do. > Brilliantly. > > ....but..... > > That's not what my post was about. I'm talking about the evidence provided > by the very existence of phenomenal fields _at all_. Blindsighted people > have cognition WITHOUT the phenomenal scene. The cognition and the > phenomenal aspects are 2 separate sets of physics intermixed. You can have > one without the other. > > Consider your current perception of the neutrinos and cosmic rays showering > you.
I not only have no perception of them: I can't guess where they are either. >That's what a blindsighted scientist would have in relation to visible > light.... = No phenomenal field. They can guess where things are and > sometimes get it right because of pre-occipital hardwiring. > > The phenomenal scene itself, regardless of its contents (aboutness, > intentionality whatever) is evidence of the universe's capacity for > generation of phenomenal fields!..... phenomenal fields that...say... have > missiles in them?...that allow you to see email forums on your PC?.....that > create problematic evidentiary regimes tending to make those using > phenomenal fields for evidence incapable of seeing it, like the hand in > front of your face? :-) > > If we open up a cranium, if the universe was literally made of the > appearances provided by phenomenal fields...we would see them! We do not. > This is conclusive empirical proof the universe is not made of the contents > of the appearance-generating system (and, for that matter, anything derived > by using it). That doesn't follow. It only shows that appearances are not things: but they may be processes or information which can be instantiated in different forms (e.g. jpeg, photo, gif,...) And "anything derived by using it" is so vague I don't know what it means. Brent Meeker >It is made of something that can generate appearances in the > right circumstances (and not in the vision system of the blindsighted). > Those circumstances exist in brain material (and not in your left kneecap!). > > Consciousness is not invisible. It is the single, only visible thing there > is. > > To say consciousness is invisible whilst using it is to accept X as true > from someone screaming "X is true!!!!!", yet at the same time denying that > anyone said anything! That this is done....when the truth of the existence > of an utterance is more certain than that which was uttered. How weird is > that?! > > I'd like everyone on this list to consider the next time anyone says > consciousness is invisible to realise that that is completely utterly wrong > and that as a result of thinking like that, valuable evidence as to the > nature of the universe is being discarded for no reason other than habit and > culture and discipline blindness. Is seeing visible? What does it look like? 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@example.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---