Le 27-juil.-05, à 03:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Now look at science.
We do correlations of perceptual artefacts = _contents_ of phenomenal
consiousness to the point of handing out _Nobel prizes_ for depictions
of correlated artefacts of our phenomenal fields.
AND THEN
we deny phenomenal consciousness? Declare it unassailable by science?
Delude ourselves that these descriptions actually contain causal
necessity?
Who does that? I don't think that, in this list, you will find someone
denying phenomenal consciousness. Some have never stopped to insist on
its fundamental importance, notably through the distinction from first
and third person point of view.
But I don't understand what you mean by causal necessity, especially
when you say that:
We have phenomenal consciousness, the most obvious, egregious
screaming evidence of the operation of that causal necessity - the
same causal necessity that results in the desciption F = MA being
found by Newton...
I tend to believe in some causal necessity related to consciousness,
but I have no evidence that F=MA has anything to do with that. I guess
you are postulating the existence of some "primitive" physical
universe, aren't you?
See my url for links toward a proof that such a postulate is
epistemologically (or ontologically with OCCAM + some other more
technical results) contradictory with the computationalist hypothesis
(which is my working hypothesis).
I don't pretend that this is obvious, but the missing 50% of science is
not phenomenological consciousness (in this list).
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
