Posted: Sep 08, 2018 4:42 pm
by GrahamH
SpeedOfSound wrote:Again, I do not think we are being clear about what exactly it is we are wanting to explain when we ask for an explanation of C. There is some missing semantic analysis here.

Is it a thing or a process? What if that statement is itself wrong-headed? Maybe a category error?


Wrong headed? How about not a thing or a process?

SpeedOfSound wrote:
Can we make sense of a contrast between conscious and unconscious 'processing'? What is the evidence for the item we wish to explain?


If C is not a process processes might contribute to C occurring. Neural processes might construct the attention schema. They might perform the attribution of experiences to subject without being a subject.

There is no necessity for all processes, or all neural processes, to be involved with the phenomenology. Then you could reasonably say that some processes are "conscious processing" where they implement C or "unconscious processing" where it falls outside the attention schema. Always remembering that proceses that build the schema are not "consciousness itself".

SpeedOfSound wrote:Back to table salt. I think even table salt is not quite thoroughly hashed out yet in it's semantics. Though we are a lot closer to success with explaining salt we think.

I have a salt shaker here. I can see it. I am aware of it. I am attending to it. I have some explanations for it. I am aware and attending to those right now.

See the problem? The meta level we wanting to get to? The encroaching stink of dualism?


No.