You Are Not What You Think But How You Think

From AntiPhilosopher
Revision as of 11:32, 25 January 2017 by ColonelZen (Talk | contribs) (Created page with " A disputatious correspondent [ quotes a Space Cadet*]: <p...")

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

A disputatious correspondent quotes a Space Cadet*:

 "[T]here is a deep logical gap between neurons and experiences, between our mental nature and our physical nature. The materialist tries to cross this gap by brute force, but the gap stubbornly remains. The reason, then, that introspection does not reveal the mind to be the brain is just that the mind is not in fact the brain. It is not that introspection is blind to the true nature of mental states. Rather, mental states are not reducible to neural states, and introspection reveals this fact."

(McGinn, Colin. The Mysterious Flame: Conscious Minds in a Material World. New York: Basic Books, 1999. p. 25) 

Here, despite his issues elsewhere McGinn echoes the party line of anti-reductionist philosophers against materialism. That introspection does not reveal the mechanisms of consciousness.

There is an additional subtext that consciousness or phenomenality is asserted to be an identity with its seeming. The claim forwards that our conscious perception cannot be illusory or misrepresented because it consciousness is the perception thus is in instance of being not other than its perception. Thge materialist, by contrast points out both the logical absence of an identified agency of perception in this description as well as an overwhelming wealth of now very well established empirical data demonstrating the many and consistent mis- and mal- perceptions our conscious awareness unavoidably contains. That even in trivial "instant" observations our perceptions are demonstrably and massively proven to be other than transparent traductions of external realities.

Need I add the obvious, that the philosophers circularly defines "phenomenality" as a vacuous tautology?

To resolve this conundrum requires only a measure of analytic scope.

(to be continued...)