--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > In an article in the NY Times magazine today > > > about the growing role that neuroscience is > > > playing in law, Stephen J. Morse, professor > > > of law and psychiatry at the University of > > > Pennsylvania, is quoted as saying: > > > > > > "I'm a thoroughgoing materialist, who believes > > > that all mental and behavioral activity is the > > > causal product of physical events in the brain." > > > > > > Fair enough. But he's also quoted as follows: > > > > > > "Suppose neuroscience could reveal that reason > > > actually plays no role in determining human > > > behavior....Suppose I could show you that your > > > intentions and your reasons for your actions > > > are post hoc rationalizations that somehow > > > your brain generates to explain to you what > > > your brain has already done" without your > > > conscious participation. > > > > > > Who is the "you" to whom the brain is > > > purportedly offering this explaination? > > > > > > Who is the "you" who is not consciously > > > participating in what the brain generates? > > > > > > Don't Morse's references to this mysterious > > > "you" constitute an implicit recognition > > > that there's *more* to mind than brain, > > > contradicting his "thoroughgoing > > > materialist" self-characterization? > > > > > > Maybe he was just speaking imprecisely to > > > make a point. And "without your conscious > > > participation" is the article writer's > > > contribution, possibly a clumsy paraphrase > > > of something Morse went on to say to clarify > > > the quoted statement. > > > > > > But I'm intrigued. I've seen this sort of > > > apparent contradiction from materialists > > > before, as if some part of them *knew* there > > > was a "you" that isn't encompassed by brain > > > but had simply excluded it from their > > > theorizing, only to let it slip out in > > > unguarded moments. > > > > The "you" that he's referring to is the illusory > > construct that ties all the different behaviors > > and observations together. > > But that would also be something the brain does, > according to his first statement. > > I'm reminded of the story Francis Crick told, > before he went over to the Dark Side, about the > woman who told him she didn't understand what > was so problematic about consciousness. He > asked her what her mental image was of what went > on in the brain, and she told him she imagined > it was something like a little television set. > > "And who," he asked her, "is watching it?" > > He says she then saw the problem immediately. > > Morse has the television set all nailed down, > but it hasn't yet occurred to him to wonder > who's watching it. >
There's no-one watching it. Atman is watchfulness, not watcher.
