> -----Original Message-----
> From: everything-list.domain.name.hidden [mailto:everything-
> list.domain.name.hidden] On Behalf Of Brent Meeker
> Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 9:49 AM
> To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> Subject: Re: evidence blindness
>
>
> Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
> >>the fact that
> >>intelligent behaviour is third person observable but consciousness is
> >>not.
> >>
> >>Stathis Papaioannou
> >
> >
> > OK. Let me get this straight. Scientist A stares at something, say X,
> > with consciousness. A sees X. Scientist A posits evidence of X from a
> > third person viewpoint. Scientist A confers with Scientist B. Scientist
> B
> > then goes and stares at X and agrees. Both of these people use
> > consciousness to come to this conclusion.
> >
> > Explicit Conclusion : "Yep, theres an X!"
> >
> > Yet there's no evidence of consciousness?.... that which literally
> enabled
> > the entire process? There is an assumption at work....
> >
> > "SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE"
> > and
> > "CONTENTS OF CONSCIOUSNESS"
> >
> > Are NOT identities.
> >
> > When you 'stare' at anything at all you have evidence of consciousness.
>
> A SIDWINDER missile 'stares' at the exhaust of a jet aircraft. Does that
> make it
> conscious?
>
This is a mind-blowingly irrelevant diversion into the usual weeds that
fails to comprehend the most basic proposition about ourselves by an
assumption which is plain wrong. You presume that the missile stares and
then attribute it to humans as equivalent. Forget the bloody missile. I am
talking about YOU. The evidence you have about YOU within YOU.
Take a look at your hand. That presentation of your hand is one piece of
content in a visual field (scene). Mind is literally and only a collection
of (rather spectacular) phenomenal scenes.
Something (within your brain material) generates the visual field in which
there is a hand. You could cognise the existence of a hand _without_ that
scene (this is what blindsight patients can do - very very badly, but they
can do it). But you don't. No, nature goes to a hell of a lot of trouble to
create that fantastic image.
You have the scene. Take note of it. It gives you ALL your scientific
evidence. This is an intrinsically private scene and you can't be objective
without it! You would have nothing to be objective about.
PROOF
Close your eyes and tell me you can be more scientific about your hand than
you could with them open. This is so obvious.
To say consciousness is not observable is completely absolutely wrong. We
observe consciousness permanently. It's all we ever do! It's just not within
the phenomenal fields, it IS the phenomenal fields.
Got it?
Colin Hales
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Sat Aug 26 2006 - 21:11:48 PDT