From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Date: 17 Nov 92 19:56:31 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <FTmDuB7w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe) writes:

>> I also experience "blue".  That does *not* make "blue" a thing which
>> either "exists" or does not "exist". 
...

>Would you say that there is no such thing as blue? No, you would
>probably say "blue is a color" or "blue is a property of light which is
>observed at certain wavelengths" or something like that, wouldn't
>you?

No, Kalki, I wouldn't say anything like that at all.  I wouldn't say
that because I actually know something about the topic.  Blue is most
certainly *not* a property of light.  It is a description of a
perceptual experience.  When I get around to finishing the posts
I'm composing on the evolution of color vision, you will hopefully get
a better sense of what I'm talking about.  At the moment color vision
is just something else to add to the list of things you're very
confused about.

>Similarly, we say that consciousness is a property of the soul by which
>it is able to make contact with the objects of existence, including
>the soul itself, other souls, and the Supersoul.

Please give me some evidence that *any* of these things exist.  I have
no problem with you believing in them yourself, but this whole
conversation has been predicated on the things you say science is
ignoring.  I'd like to know exactly *what* it is that's being
"ignored", and how it is that we can stop "ignoring" it while
remaining within the realm of science. 

>> You're right in that it's not just difficulty in understanding your
>> question that makes consciousness "not a definite thing".  It is our
>> understanding of the physical basis of what we are and the
>> observations of the behavior of others which makes it appear that
>> consciousness is not a thing.
>
>What we are has no physical basis at all, for we are the soul, which is
>not a physical thing and which is not dependent in any way on any
>physical phenomena. 

See above.

>This is why science has difficulty understanding the
>question of consciousness, what to speak of consciousness itself.
>Science will not admit that there is anything in the world except
>matter and material energy! 

This is false.  It's not that science doesn't *admit* to these things.
It's just that currently scientists have no way to *investigate* such
things.  They may or may not exist, but at the moment it doesn't make
any difference to the pursuit of *scientific* knowledge.

>The scientific paradigm is inadequate, since
>it does not acknowledge a class of actually existing phenomena.

This may also be true.  Perhaps that's why so many people here keep
saying that science and religion are orthogonal, and that you don't
have to give up one to appreciate the other.  My, but you are like a
typical creationist in some ways aren't you?

>> Start with Patricia Churchland's _Neurophilosophy_, and Paul
>> Churchland's _Matter and Consciousness_.  
...

>If I can find them in our university library system, I will look them
>over. Perhaps you could give a brief summary.

Ok, here's a brief summary.  We can't yet say whether or not something
besides an understanding of brain function is required in order to
understand "consciousness".  However, we have a vast amount of
information about our brains, and it is at least reasonable to suppose
that our "minds" are just manifestations of our brains' activities.
As a sidelight, much of our "folk psychology"--the common sense views
about both our own and each other's thinking--is incorrect or at least
inadequate. 

>Kalki Dasa

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins