> 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):
haptic (hot, cold, pressure, nociception...various including that which is
situational emotions (mad bad sad glad....)
primordial emotions (hunger, thirst, orgasm...)
internal mental dialog and imagery of all types (aove) including imagined,

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. :-)


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 everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to