Re: evidence blindness

From: Brent Meeker <>
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 23:28:01 -0700

Colin Hales wrote:
>>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
>>itself. Consciousness can only be consciousness *of* something.
>>Got that?
>>Brent Meeker
> Absolutely. Intrinsic intentionality is what phenomenal fields do.
> Brilliantly.
> ....but.....
> That's not what my post was about. I'm talking about the evidence provided
> by the very existence of phenomenal fields _at all_. Blindsighted people
> have cognition WITHOUT the phenomenal scene. The cognition and the
> phenomenal aspects are 2 separate sets of physics intermixed. You can have
> one without the other.
> Consider your current perception of the neutrinos and cosmic rays showering
> you.

I not only have no perception of them: I can't guess where they are either.

>That's what a blindsighted scientist would have in relation to visible
> light.... = No phenomenal field. They can guess where things are and
> sometimes get it right because of pre-occipital hardwiring.
> The phenomenal scene itself, regardless of its contents (aboutness,
> intentionality whatever) is evidence of the universe's capacity for
> generation of phenomenal fields!..... phenomenal fields that...say... have
> missiles in them?...that allow you to see email forums on your PC?.....that
> create problematic evidentiary regimes tending to make those using
> phenomenal fields for evidence incapable of seeing it, like the hand in
> front of your face? :-)
> If we open up a cranium, if the universe was literally made of the
> appearances provided by phenomenal fields...we would see them! We do not.
> This is conclusive empirical proof the universe is not made of the contents
> of the appearance-generating system (and, for that matter, anything derived
> by using it).

That doesn't follow. It only shows that appearances are not things: but they may be
processes or information which can be instantiated in different forms (e.g. jpeg,
photo, gif,...) And "anything derived by using it" is so vague I don't know what it

Brent Meeker

>It is made of something that can generate appearances in the
> right circumstances (and not in the vision system of the blindsighted).
> Those circumstances exist in brain material (and not in your left kneecap!).
> Consciousness is not invisible. It is the single, only visible thing there
> is.
> To say consciousness is invisible whilst using it is to accept X as true
> from someone screaming "X is true!!!!!", yet at the same time denying that
> anyone said anything! That this is done....when the truth of the existence
> of an utterance is more certain than that which was uttered. How weird is
> that?!
> I'd like everyone on this list to consider the next time anyone says
> consciousness is invisible to realise that that is completely utterly wrong
> and that as a result of thinking like that, valuable evidence as to the
> nature of the universe is being discarded for no reason other than habit and
> culture and discipline blindness.

Is seeing visible? What does it look like?

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 - 02:29:53 PDT

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