From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!sunic!dkuug!diku!kurt Tue Nov 19 11:10:10 EST 1991
Article 1323 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!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: <1991Nov15.101130.22739@odin.diku.dk>
Date: 15 Nov 91 10:11:30 GMT
References: <1991Oct29.214816.23349@timessqr.gc.cuny.edu> <37577@shamash.cdc.com> <1991Nov11.182221.10967@sun!kla> <37922@shamash.cdc.com> <1991Nov14.110117.27436@odin.diku.dk> <37948@shamash.cdc.com>
Sender: kurt@rimfaxe.diku.dk
Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen
Lines: 57

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

>>>>In article <37577@shamash.cdc.com> map@svl.cdc.com writes:

>>>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.  

>>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?

>There are several errors in what you say.  First, I did not say that
>consciousness is implicit in every phenomenon - I said that consciousness
>is a fact that is implicit in all arguments, knowledge, and definitions.
>The existence of weather (a phenomenon) does not imply consciousness, but 
>an argument does.


Phenomenon is a term that means (according to its greek origin, 'phainomenon') 
"what appears to be" (if you wish, although I believe it is an error, you 
may add "of an entity"). This would include any perception/feeling. In its 
simplest form, knowledge of something being true, amounts to perception of a
"fact". This implies, in accordance to your former statements, and if 
your use of the english language is equivalent to mine, that consciousness
is implicit in every phenomenon.


>Second, when I spoke of the brain, I spoke of it as an entity, not a        
>phenomenon, and pointed out that the entity "brain" must exist prior
>to the existence of the consciousness of the organism possessing the
>brain.  The existence of consciousness implies the existence of the entity 
>having it.

The entity brain as object of scientific discourse is constructed
(discovered if you prefer) solely upon singular phenomena. On the
real being of the Entity brain you will not be able to construct any
discourse whatsoever.


>So, it is not contradictory to say that arguments, etc., imply consciousness,
>and that consciousness implies brain.

So you are either contradicting yourself or using the english language
inconsistently.

Anyway, I don't know if this discussion is of general interest. Maybe we
should move it to a private level, via e-mail.

Kurt.

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


