On May 27, 5:45 pm, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 5/27/2012 2:04 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
> >     This does seem to imply an interesting situation where the 
> > mind/consciousness of the
> > observer is in a sense no longer confined to being 'inside the skull" but 
> > ranging out to
> > the farthest place where something is percieved. It seems to me that imply 
> > a mapping
> > between a large hyper-volume (the out there) and the small volume of the 
> > brain that
> > cannot be in a one-to-one form.
> The skull, the brain, and 'out there' are all just parts of the world model 
> your brain
> constructs.

A model is a presentation which we use to refer to another
presentation. To say that the brain constructs models relies on the
possibility of a model which has no presentation to begin with. It
means that our every experience, including your sitting in that chair
reading these words, is made of 'representation-ness', which stands in
for the Homunculus to perform this invisible and logically redundant
alchemical transformation from perfectly useful neurological signals
into some weird orgy of improbable identities.

It doesn't hold up. It is a de-presentation of the world in order to
justify our failure to locate consciousness inside the tissue of the
brain. Consciousness isn't 'in' anything, and it's not produced by
anything. It's a story which produces brains, bodies, planets, etc.
They are parts of consciousness that are modeled as the world. They
are representations made of condensed, externalized, temporally
imploded presentations of sense.


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to