[Wittrs] SWM's concept of consciousness
- From: "BruceD" <blroadies@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:03:08 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "SWM" <SWMirsky@...> wrote:
> My view is that consciousness can be accounted for by describing
increasingly complex and sophisticated functionalities
What's a functionality? Speaking, thinking, walking, ...what people do
and say. Right? And developmentally psychology present a vast literature
of studies that show the increasing complexity. And in that description,
one takes for granted that the person under study is conscious. Since
consciousness is an assumption, it's origin is not studied. Unless you
are referring to the brain areas associated with consciousness. But then
again, this is a cor-relational study in which one assumes that the
person is conscious and measures brain activity. Of course, in doing so,
the brain is considered a necessary condition for C, but this research
never asks HOW the brain causes (produces) C. That the brain becomes
increasingly complex does not address the HOW. Moreover, if we build an
entity that we considered consciousness, it will not, in itself, tell us
HOW the material we put in became conscious. It just does.
> ...But if intentionality is describable
No "buts" about it. We can describe intentionality. My question for you
is this. If we describe intentionality in purposive terms, "I wrote this
post because I enjoy conversing with you", then how do you reconcile
this purposive account with a causal, non-purposive account of the
brain?
bruce
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
