Hi: Sorry but once a week is about all I have time for; but I always
learn something from your Post
--- In Wittrs@yahoogroups.com, "gabuddabout" <wittrsamr@...> wrote:

> That's why we seek NCCs (neuroilogical correlates of consciousness).

OK. Exactly what is correlated with what. A brain cell(s) firing
and....?

> "In the real world there is first person subjectivity without the need
to posit mental substances that are of some different ontological

The notion of substance has no place in my account of who and what I am,
feel..

> that is, ontological subjectivity is wholly the result of the brain.

What prompts you to say that? Perhaps. At one time in the universe there
were no minds. Then there where. Where did they come from? What caused
them? One possible take is that brains make them. Another, one I'm
having great difficulty to get across, is that a mind isn't a "it", so
it couldn't have been caused or appear later.

What am I saying? What appears later, what is caused, is certain NCCs,
if you will, that are found in certain animals which we conceive as
having minds. But once we make this judgment of mind, we reverse our
understanding. We see the animal as volitional and hence the NCCs are
not causing the animal to act but rather animal is using his brain to
accomplish what he is setting out to do.

Explain to me two things.

1- What would Searle say about what I've written?

2- > I also agree with the spirit of Stuart's view.

The spirit in what sense?

bruce

=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/