On 1/19/2015 4:53 PM, David Nyman wrote:
Consciousness may be one of the things caused.Then it should be entirely observable, at least in principle. That's Dennett's position, essentially. He's actually gone out of his way to deny that thoughts are any more 'private' than anything else. I think that what you suggest inevitably leads to one or another exclusively 'public' re-definition of the term.
What would that mean? If neuroscientists of the future develop brain monitoring instrumentation and software such that they scan watch processes in your brain and then say correctly, "You were seeing red and it reminded you of a dress your late grandmother wore and made you sad." would you accept that as "entirely observable"?
Brent -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
