[ExI] consciousness and perception

Ian Goddard iamgoddard at yahoo.com
Thu Jan 22 17:49:53 UTC 2009


John K Clark wrote:

> Probable the leading thinkers aren't paying much attention to the
> "representational view" is that there is no "is" there, the idea is 
> empty; it can suggest no new experiments to perform nor can it give 
> theoreticians any help. Nor is there any way to prove it wrong so 
> it's not science, it's not even philosophy, it's blather.


 Asking where neurally processed sensory phenomena, or percepta, are 
(in or outside the brain) is of course fundamental to understanding 
perception. If we want to create synthetic brains with perceptual 
abilities like our own, surely we need to figure that out. There's 
nothing supernatural or pseudo-scientific about such a line of inquiry. 

 However, the idea that a brain's percepta exist outside it rests on 
supernatural, or as yet undiscovered, 'projecting' abilities of the brain.
So it seems that the representational model is the inherent default model 
until and unless someone can show that the brain can project outside of 
itself the percepts it's processed. In short, the representational model 
is the simplest model (invoking Occam's razor) because it posits no 
supernatural, or undiscovered physical, processes. ~Ian


http://IanGoddard.com

"It is Art, and Art only, that reveals us to ourselves." - Oscar Wilde

 


      



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list