getting past emergentism
The incredible Sulk
Pouting at Sulk.nospam
Tue Apr 10 04:21:08 EST 2001
> You have to laugh. Logical recursion always implies paradox.
> You cannot use Rational Materialism to analyse consciousness, since it
> is just a tool consciousness uses to analkyses everything else *but*
> Succinct way of putting it. But I do not see that as a problem.
> It is definitely funny. But although 'Rational Materialism' is used
> by consciousness, why can it not be used on consciousness?
Oh you can use it allright: My point is that it is a meaningless
In terms of building mental models of reality, it is ridiculous to
builld one, and then attempt to make that which built it, part of it.
If you like, consciousness must be - in order to create the set -
outside of the set of all conscious phenomena. To then explain it in
terms of things within that set seems to me to be skating on very thin
That is not to say that valuable information may not be gleaned by
perturbing consciousness with e.g. drugs, surgery, or observing the
effects of trauma. But it can never *explain* consciousness.
> Granted, consciousness may have always been there, and did not
> derive from the brain or even 'life'...but can't a nail be used on a
> hammer? It wasn't meant to do so, but it still can happen, and
> its just as funny!
the house does not explain the builder. Jsut because a builder builds a
house does not mean that the builder exists solely to build that
Great Sayings of the past:
"He who sh*ts in the road will meet flies on his return" (Mr Natural)
"De Heffalumpis semper disputandum est" (Winne Ille Pu)
More information about the Neur-sci