From: Brent Allsop (allsop@fc.hp.com)
Date: Mon Jun 04 2001 - 15:44:34 MDT
Lee Corbin <lcorbin@ricochet.net>
> Okay, when you say "does the representing", I have to ask "to
> whom?". Do you want to retort "to me!", to the I that I am!"? You
> appear by the above kind of statement to be asserting that there is
> a disconnected subsystem that is the viewer in the Cartesian
> theater. That's the "you", and the effs are presented to it.
I believe I go over this much better in my paper, but let me
try to quickly paraphrase.
If anything (a computer, a person, a God, a ghost in a
Cartesian theater.... whatever) "knows" something, there must be
something real in that being that is this knowledge. If someone
learns something new, the detectable state of the person must be
different in order to represent this new knowledge. This physical
detectable difference is the representation that is the being's new
knowledge. If open my eyes and I see a green tree out there, there
must be something in my conscious mind or brain, that is my new
conscious knowledge of that tree. Otherwise, what is it that is my
conscious knowledge??? Surely, my knowledge isn't simply the tree
itself - and hence no change in me is required to know of the tree!?
Now that kind of thinking would surely result in infinitely recursive
problematic Cartesian theater like thinking - not the other way
around.
The tree that reflects 500 nm light is the initial cause of
the perception process, and the resulting set of 3D green qualia is
the final result of the perception process. It is my knowledge or
phenomenal conscious awareness of the tree. It's as simple as that.
Brent Allsop
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:07:57 MST