> > Colin, list, > <huge snip> > > But, past a certain point, going over all these generalities stops advancing the point and makes me sound fuddy-duddy. It sounds like you have some further, and more-specific, ideas, which are the real energy source behind your argument. > > Best, Ben Udell
Wow! Can you type! All good stuff. OK... all my views of science and a practical causal mechanism of a physics of phenomenal consciousness have been posted here in recent times. I couldn't tell you where! It's all there. Some clarity: The two types of consciousness are very well described and quite empirically well contrasted (through studies of brain patholoy..phantom limb, blindsight, synesthesia...strokes, accidents...a whole pile of aphasias etc). Read chalmers, ned block, searle... A) Phenomenal fields/scenes (hard problem): vision aural haptic (hot, cold, pressure, nociception...various including that which is propriocepted olfaction gustation situational emotions (mad bad sad glad....) primordial emotions (hunger, thirst, orgasm...) internal mental dialog and imagery of all types (aove) including imagined, dreamed ============== ADD THEM UP = MIND = CONSCIOUSNESS ============== B) Non-phenonmenal consciousness(easy problem): Everything else is that demonstrated by behaviour. It could have been learned or innate but they can all be characterised as 'belief'. Reflex behaviours are innate beliefs. These beliefs may launch and be mediated by phenomenal fields, which may then cause the acquisition/alteration of beliefs. The best way to think of these things is as neuron configuration that survives (exists through) a period of UN-consciousness, where there was no phenomenal field. Dreamless sleep or maybe a coma. A zombie scientist has all B and no A A blindsighted scientist has no visual field as per A but some visually related behaviour through B An alzheimers scientist has whole pile of A and a dimishing/debilitated B The two types of consciousness are inside each other. It's pretty simple. If you stare at a brain with consciousness you get answers to (B). You get no answers (causal explanation) to A except correlated hearsay... ....and what's worse... because of the dodgy belief systems of scientists you get prohibited from scientifically investigating underlying mechanisms of A ( it gets called metaphysics), even though A delivers all evidence! Kuhn said that scientific knowledge is on the cusp of change when inconsistency emerges. If ever there was a case for inconsistency we have one....the tricky thing is that it's inconsistency _within_ science...not inconsistency in a set of laws produced _by_ science... If there was some sort of alarm button to press on this I'd be pressing it right now. :-) cheers, colin hales --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
