" ***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? "

Not at all. There's far more to it but I'm short of internet funds so I have to be brief.

This is not the best medium for these kinds of discussions. Without the ability to draw examples and to use body language, without the time to revise and spellcheck what we post, and without the opportunity to engage in real-time discourse, making a point is extremely difficult, often impossible.

I shouldn't have said "consciousness does not exist". The real issue is that 'existence' is not an attribute we can apply to "consciousness". The correct way to say it is, "it is not true that consciousness exists, and it's not true that it does not".

A while ago, I started to notice something strange about the whole of our knowledge. It was great to have met Dick at that time, not because he had the answers but because he seemed to be asking the same questions. I I believe I have finally understood what is wrong with our knowledge as a whole, but I have not yet found a way to communicate it to anyone else. And in that sense as well I'm in the same situation Dick finds himself: the existence of the problem carries within itself the seed of its incomprehensibility.

I'll think about it some more and see if I can find a better way to explain myself.

Cheers,

Aurino

• 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