Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!nntp.sei.cmu.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!munnari.OZ.AU!metro!news.ci.com.au!wabbit.cc.uow.edu.au!news.nsw.CSIRO.AU!hesse
From: lindley@syd.dit.csiro.au (CSIRO-DIT)
Subject: Re: consciousness
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: hesse.syd.dit.csiro.au
Message-ID: <4919nt$qig_001@syd.dit.csiro.au>
To: world
Sender: news@news.nsw.CSIRO.AU
Organization: CSIRO
X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #3
References: <DI5HBC.Ipq@scn.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 08:01:01 GMT
Lines: 44
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:34951 comp.ai.philosophy:35119

In article <DI5HBC.Ipq@scn.org>, mentifex@scn.org (SCN User) wrote:
>
>   Consciousness is an epiphenomenon atop the substrate of the
>associative processing of incoming perceptions.  

- what is the stuff of associations? Are they physical?

- perceptions = perceptions of ...?... by ...?... what?

- "atop" means? What exactly is on top of what, and in what sense?

>The chain of
>associations is so lightning-fast and so manifold, that we perceive
>the chain itself as a phenomenon - an epiphenomenon.

- "we" perceive the chain in what sense? If we perceive "the chain"
  as something other than a physical chain, what is this other thing,
  and what, exactly, is doing the perceiving of it ("as an epiphenomenon")?

If you try to answer these questions seriously, you'll find either:

1. epiphenomenal consciousness is unnecessary, and all talk of
   consciousness is reducible to functional convenience, ie. could be
   replaced by reports of brain states and processes. Eg. instead of
   saying "I don't like that idea" you could say " this brain is secreting
   negativamine under stimulation of the neural cluster associated with
   token string XXX". 

or

2. consciousness is an ontologically distinct and semantically critical
   phenomenon, having a specific ontological and/or epistemic role in
   perception (theory formation, etc.).

or

3. you're locked within language games that can never reach absolute
   foundations. All of these things are myths with greater or lesser
   value according to their role within the more general myths of our
   lives.

I prefer 3: we are all ficticious characters in stories of our own writing.


