From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!sunic!dkuug!diku!kurt Tue Nov 19 11:10:00 EST 1991
Article 1307 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!sunic!dkuug!diku!kurt
>From: kurt@diku.dk (Kurt M. Alonso)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: MIND, BRAIN, CONCIOUSNESS
Message-ID: <1991Nov14.110117.27436@odin.diku.dk>
Date: 14 Nov 91 11:01:17 GMT
References: <1991Oct29.214816.23349@timessqr.gc.cuny.edu> <37577@shamash.cdc.com> <1991Nov11.182221.10967@sun!kla> <37922@shamash.cdc.com>
Sender: kurt@rimfaxe.diku.dk
Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen
Lines: 51

map@svl.cdc.com (Mark Peters) writes:

>In <1991Nov11.182221.10967@sun!kla> kla!zardoz@sun.com (Phillip Wayne) writes:

>>In article <37577@shamash.cdc.com> map@svl.cdc.com writes:
>>>
>>>This Zen master said that "brain happens to consciousness," which
>>>implies that consciousness came first, then the brain.  The proper
>>>view is that both mind and consciousness arise from the nature of
>>>the brain (and of the rest of the nervous system).
>>>

[lines deleted]

>Consciousness can't be defined because it is an irreducible, self-evident,
>primary fact that is implicit in all arguments, all knowledge, and in
>particular, all definitions.  

>In a formal definition, one essentially reduces the concept being defined
>to the less abstract concepts that gave rise to it.  If you don't
>understand these less abstract concepts, then you have to find *their*
>definitions, and so on, until you reach the point where you understand
>all the concepts involved.  Regardless of one's knowledge, however, every
>concept has to rest ultimately on irreducible primaries that can't be
>formally defined, otherwise an infinite regression results, making
>formation of the concept impossible from the outset.  The point is, 
>conceptualization has to start *somewhere*, and the only place it has to 
>start is with reality, i.e., what we can observe via sense-perception - 
>"consciousness" is one such fundamental starting point.

>Nobody can "prove" consciousness exists, because proof is a process of
>reducing an abstraction to the facts of reality that gave rise to it,
>and consciousness is the means by which those facts were grasped in
>the first place.  Consciousness is one of the preconditions of proof,
>and therefore not subject to proof itself.  But this doesn't mean that
>one can't know what consciousness is - we know what it is by observation.
>This also doesn't mean that one can't try to prove things that depend on
>consciousness - we use consciousness in the attempt, but there is no 
>alternative to this.

First you say that consciousness is implicit in every phenomenon. After that
 you affirm that more fundamental than consciousness is the phenomenon 
"brain" (phenomenon because you will never ever reach the true noumenon
"brain", if that means something). Don't you think these two statements
are contradictory?


>--
>Mark A. Peters                              ****** ======================
>Control Data Corporation                    ****** == "What a save!!!" ==
>Internet: map@svl.cdc.com                   ****** == "What an idea!!" ==


