RE: virus: Angelica de Meme

Robin Faichney (r.j.faichney@stir.ac.uk)
Fri, 18 Apr 1997 14:49:00 +0100

konsler@ascat.harvard.edu wrote:
>>From: Robin Faichney <r.j.faichney@stir.ac.uk>
>>Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 10:53:00 +0100
>
>>Scientists certainly know what
>>"conscious" means in the same sense that we all do. But science
>>doesn't know what "conscious" means, in the sense that there is no
>>scientific account of consciousness. I'd say, in addition, that there
>>cannot ever be such an account, because in order to be scientific
>>it would have to be objective, while consciousness is intrinsically
>>subjective.
>
>I don't agree with the statement:
>Consciousness is intrinsically subjective.
>
>Perhaps you could clarify?

Consciousness is never what you're aware of, only what
you're aware *with*. (Self-consciousness/awareness is
not literally consc of consc or aware of aware else we'd
have infinite loops.) So consc is subject, not object. Only
objects (where that includes forces, processes etc) can
be weighed, measured, play a part in scientific theories.

>Never say never, especially about science. The hunger to
>understand is strong.

Some things are impossible by virtue of logic, definitions,
conceptual analysis etc. This falls into that sort of class.
Show me a black hole. And I mean *show me*, visually,
and *a black hole*, not its side effects/whatever.

--
Robin Faichney
r.j.faichney@stirling.ac.uk
http://www.stir.ac.uk/envsci/staff/rjf1/