From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zazen!daffy!uwvax!meteor!tobis Wed Sep 23 16:54:14 EDT 1992
Article 6959 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zazen!daffy!uwvax!meteor!tobis
>From: tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Subject: Re: Thought? Physical processes? Inside? Outside?
Message-ID: <1992Sep17.204023.20400@meteor.wisc.edu>
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Meteorology and Space Science
References: <1992Sep16.145123.782@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <tim.716691088@giaeb>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 92 20:40:23 GMT
Lines: 34

In article <tim.716691088@giaeb> tim@giaeb.cc.monash.edu.au (Tim Roberts) writes:
>>Would I be right in deducing that thoughts "take place
>>outside" our awareness?  And where does awareness "take
>>place"?
>
>I would say that awareness arises out of various thoughts, which of course
>take place in the brain.  However, this does not mean that we are "aware" of
>all of the neurons, and patterns of neurons, firing at any particular time.

This seems to be along the lines of the accepted opinion, but I for one
find it completely devoid of meaning. There seems to me to be no evidence
that awareness has anything that can reasonably be called a location.

Max Webb and I have been having an interesting discussion on this topic, 
starting in sci.skeptic, probably an inappropriate newsgroup, and proceeding
to email. I may post it here. Parts of it may still be available on your system
under the rubric "Brain and Mind".

Unfortunately, although imho we have both said interesting things, we seem to
be talking past each other a bit. It seems to me that people who blithely
accept that awareness can be reduced to an "epiphenomenon" or "emergent
property" of the brain, proceed by _assuming_ that the universe is reducible
to physical principles, and then claiming that it is _proven_.

Lest you mistake me for a fanatic of some kind, let me assert this: I do not
claim it proven that mind is not reducible to physics. Nevertheless, I do
go against the zeitgeist by taking that as the most probable hypothesis.

I don't think statements like Tim's above do anything to address the sorts
of questions they respond to.

more to come
mt



