> What I have done is try to figure out a valid test for phenomenal
> consciousness.

What is the functional definition of "phenomenal"?
Is there "non-phenomenal consciousness"?

Phenomena are things that happen in the universe.
Those things are perceived by humans.
That perception is called phenomenal consciousness.
The complete collection of phenomenal scenes is consciousness.

Yes there is non-phenomenal consciousness. It is what survives a dreamless
sleep. Chalmers called it 'psychological consciousness'. Block called it
'access concsiousness'. All the beliefs (innate or learned) that you have,
none of which have any intrinsic experiential qualities until brought into
conscuisness... these are non-phenomenal. This includes any scientific
beliefs such as F = MA.

> It seems
> science is a unique/special candidate for a variety of reasons. Its
> success is critically dependent on the existence of a phenomenal
> representation of the external world.

It's criticaly dependent on having a representation of the external world
- I don't know what "phenomenal" adds to that.

OK. I could make a 'representation' out of any old abstraction I wanted.
There are an infinite number of ways to abstract something, none of which
are experienced through the act of using them to do anything. This is
where it gets self-referential and confusing.

The provision of phenomenal consciousness is a phenomena, as real as a
rock. It's just that the phenomena is not a 'thing' like a rock, it's a
thing that has intrinsic 'aboutness' as its primary quality. The fact that
this sounds wierd and nobody explains how (except me, elsewhere) is
irrelevant at this point.

You can't have a life with a rock in it woithout having a rock.
You can't be conscious without having phenomenal cosnciousness.

Both are just physics of our universe doing what it does. Mostly the rocks
are external to the cranium. Although in the case of my dog and
politicians I wonder. :-)

> OK, so the real sticking point is the 'phenomenal construct'. The zombie
> could have a 'construct' with as much detail in it as the human phenomenal
> construct, but that is phenomenally inert (a numerical abstraction).

Again you seem to be calling on "phenomenal" to do all the work of denying
consciousness to the zombie.  You could just use "human" instead.

"Phenomenal" calls up real physics. Humam or artefact - it does not
matter. Without the phenomena that create phenonmenal consciousness it
won't be conscious.

I hope the above has helped with 'PHENOMENAL'.

I've been on this all afternoon. It's been very instructive to understand
how my words can be heard by others. We all hear different things.
Time out!


 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to