> On 10/10/2011 1:50 PM, benjayk wrote:
>> I am aware of that. It is obvious that this is what you searching. The
>> is, if you try to explain concsciousness you are applying a concept to
>> something that just doesn't fit what is talked about. Explaining
>> consciousness in the sense you mean it (explain it*from* something) is
>> nonsense, as consciousness is already required*before* anything at all
> That kind of reasoning implies that language cannot be explained because
> words are already
> required before anything can be explained.
Exactly. That's why no one can give a complete explanation of language,
especially of its beginning (it really has no beginning, it is a smooth
transition from non-language). Of course we can explain aspects of language
in terms of other aspects of language. I am not saying that we can't explain
aspects of consciousness, just not consciousness as such, and the same is
true for language.
> Logical priority doesn't entail explanatory
I think so, with regards to fundamental matters and fundamental
explanations. One could also say that this means that there are no
fundamental verbal explanations, since they would require words to exist
before their fundament, which of course is not possible.
The only fundamental explanations in this case are non-linguistic, which
fits our experience. The more fundamental, the less words suffice. That's
why you can't explain sight to a blind person, the experience of sight is
more fundamental than where the next bus stop is.
View this message in context:
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
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
For more options, visit this group at