If you try to explain consciousness in terms of unconscious events, well you'll never get there. It's like Xeno's paradox of going an eternal number of half-ways--a misstatement.
Instead you have to look at it much as the levels of evolution. Its rules are not those of preconscious conditions any more than the rule of 'you must wear a beard if you are adult male' that the Taliban have is explainable by biochemistry, or the shave head and face is a part of being in a certain Zen monastary. Which one is biochemically correct? >GONG< not a reducible question in pre-social laws. thanks--mel ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 2:41 PM Subject: Re: [MD] Quick one: causation > Consciousness Explained, or Explained Away? > > When we learn that the only difference between gold and silver is the number of subatomic particles in their atoms, we may feel cheated or angry - those physicists have explained something away: The goldness is gone from gold; they've left out the very silveriness of silver that we appreciate. And when they explain the way reflection and absorption of electromagnetic radiation accounts for colors and color vision, they seem to neglect the very thing that matters most. But of course there has to be some "leaving out" - otherwise we wouldn't have begun to explain. Leaving something out is not a feature of failed explanations, but of successful explanations. > > Only a theory that explained conscious events in terms of unconscious events could explain consciousness at all. If your model of how pain is a product of brain activity still has a box in it labeled "pain," you haven't yet begun to explain what pain is, and if your model of consciousness carries along nicely until the magic moment when you have to say "then a miracle occurs" you haven't begun to explain what consciousness is. > > This leads some people to insist that consciousness can never be explained. But why should consciousness be the only thing that can't be explained? Solids and liquids and gases can be explained in terms of things that aren't themselves solids or liquids or gases. Surely life can be explained in terms of things that aren't themselves alive - and the explanation doesn't leave living things lifeless. The illusion that consciousness is the exception comes about, I suspect, because of a failure to understand this general feature of successful explanation. Thinking, mistakenly, that the explanation leaves something out, we think to save what otherwise would be lost by putting it back into the observer as a quale - or some other "intrinsically" wonderful property. The psyche becomes the protective skirt under which all these beloved kittens can hide. > (Daniel Dennett, Consciousness Explained, p. 454-455) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
