From: Twink (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Thu Nov 27 1997 - 17:30:52 MST
At 10:07 PM 11/27/97 +0100, Guru George
<gurugeorge@sugarland.idiscover.co.uk> wrote:
>Brent Allsop <allsop@swttools.fc.hp.com> wrote:
>> I am saying that the common sense idea that the tree we are
>>aware of that we think is beyond our eyes is wrong is not really
>>beyond our eyes. The tree we are aware of is a tree constructed of
>>phenomenal qualia in our brain via certain not yet completely
>>understood neural correlate. This tree we are aware of only
>>abstractly represents the real tree beyond our eyes.
>
>Doesn't this just mean that we are aware of the tree beyond our eyes?
>What is wrong with saying that we are aware of two kinds of things: our
>own organism's reaction to reality, and reality *via* analysis of that
>reaction?
Good point! I tend to agree. How would one know there was a tree
or a neural structure or a correlation without some awareness of the
external world. The problem I see here is that we need to integrate
the external/causal view of mind with the internal/phenomenological
one. The two are not opposites, but part of a seamless whole. One
cannot be aware of something without a means of awareness. And
just because one is aware by a specific means does not invalidate
one's awareness.
Daniel Ust
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:45:10 MST