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
>>consciousness
>>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
means.
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 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 Sun Aug 27 2006 - 02:29:53 PDT