On 27 Jan 2014, at 18:06, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:55 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net>
wrote:
> Refer to my discourse on solving "the hard problem".
Forget about solving it, I would much rather read a discourse that
clearly and unambiguously explains exactly what "the hard problem"
is.
In a nutshell, the difficulty is that a complete 3p explanation of the
brain seems to make consciousness into something having no role and no
reason, and this contradicts the first person experience we have.
Exactly what is it that you expect a successful consciousness theory
to do?
To explain the line above, or to explain why we cannot answer the line
above. Then comp + the definition of knowledge by Theaetetus does
excatly that. It explains 99%9 of the above, and explain completely
why something has to look incomprehensible.
I think consciousness is probably just the way information feels
when it is being processed;
In which computations. You admit yourself that consciousness cannot be
localized in one brain, in case two identical brains process the same
information at some level. So your answer is too much naive. You
should see this when in the mode that the First Person Indeterminacy
exists.
if you don't find that explanation satisfactory it can only mean one
thing, you don't believe that consciousness is fundamental.
Good point. Consciousness can't be fundamental, especially in theories
trying to explain it.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
