Re: evidence blindness

From: Brent Meeker <>
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 21:02:28 -0700

Colin Hales wrote:
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: [mailto:everything-
>>] On Behalf Of Brent Meeker
>>Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 9:49 AM
>>Subject: Re: evidence blindness
>>Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
>>>>the fact that
>>>>intelligent behaviour is third person observable but consciousness is
>>>>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
>>>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
>>>the entire process? There is an assumption at work....
>>>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
> 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.
> 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

Most of the time I'm observing something else. When I try to observe consciouness, I
find I am instead thinking of this or that particular thing, and not consciousness
itself. Consciousness can only be consciousness *of* something.

Got that?

Brent Meeker

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Sun Aug 27 2006 - 00:04:21 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:12 PST