[Wittrs] Re: The Vexing Question (response to Stuart)
- From: "Cayuse" <z.z7@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 14:52:41 +0100
Stuart wrote:
> if one once sees the point of thinking of consciousness in this way, i.e., as
> awareness resulting from certain systemic functions performed together in an
> overlapping and interactive way, then there is no strange question to "muscle
> in". This is the whole point of reconceiving consciousness in this way, i.e.,
> we no longer have to presume some bottom line underlying feature that is
> awareness. Awareness is explained, rather, as the interplay of several
> different
> perfectly ordinary information processing functions.
It seems that you feel compelled to "reconceive consciousness" because you
disapprove of the language game in which the word is used to denote the fact
of the existence of the "contents of consciousness" (given an appreciation that
in this particular case the word "contents" does not implicate a container).
Your argument that this use "presumes some bottom line underlying feature"
seems like a straw-man to me, since this use simply acknowledges the fact
of the existence of the "contents of consciousness" and makes no reference to
any "underlying feature".
> I suspect the real "ostrich mode" is to be found in a flight to mystery, to
> the unnameable, to the unreferenceable, the all, the microcosm, etc., etc.
It would be helpful if you could explain where you think the "mystery" lies in
using the word consciousness to denote the fact of the existence
of the "contents of consciousness" (given an appreciation that in this
particular case the word "contents" does not implicate a container).
Other related posts:
