Hello Aurino,

***The problem with 'consciousness', the reason the subject is not a legitimate one for science, is that it doesn't exist!***

This is moving closer to the eliminativist position of Dennett, don't you think?

***In essence 'consciousness' is a word that stands for something which is not real. To seek explanations for consciousness is not unlike seeking explanations for how the number 57 works or which part of our brain is responsible for calculating baseball scores. At the root of the imbroglio is our enormous tendency to give more meaning to abstract concepts than they can possibly have. The bewitchment of thought by language, as Wittgenstein put it.***

There might be some of that, but I frankly think consciousness is a real holistic phenomena. It is the center of the term "I". It is the reason that when you walk past a mirror that you say: "that's me". Or, it's when we talk about the distant future that we each realize that we are mortal.

This is more than 'understanding', it is 'understanding' of 'us' in particular. Our thoughts, our opinions, our family, our homes, our country, our existence, etc. Maybe this 'thing' is not just one phenomena. Maybe it's self-awareness, understanding, logical thinking, etc, all wrapped up in one package, but whatever it is, it is clear that we think we have a consciousness and if we don't have such a thing, then we have to explain as to why we feel like we do.

Warm regards, Harv

• Nope - aurino_s - May 20, 2003 - 13:38 UTC
  • Okay - harvey1 - May 20, 2003 - 14:28 UTC
    • A better way to explain myself - aurino_s - May 20, 2003 - 17:59 UTC
      • Try it - harvey1 - May 20, 2003 - 18:55 UTC
        • Give me some time - aurino_s - May 20, 2003 - 19:31 UTC