I have
not finished reading the article, but my assessment so far is that
it
is indeed interesting, both for its strengths and for its weaknesses.
Indeed,
it is generating so many branches of thought that I think I shall compose a
separate
thread.
Before I
do so, I should like to point out that the "hard problem" of
consciousness
may
be an inherently unsolvable problem for a simple reason:
The eye
cannot see itself.
Yes, the
analogy is not perfect, because the eye does not actually see anything,
but
the point made by the adage is spot on correct.
My
pseudo-definition of consciousness is, consciousness is that which
knows
that it is conscious. Yes, a circular definition, but with axioms, such
is always the case.
More than
that, I think we can never know.
We can
know things ABOUT consciousness, but not what it is.
One more
thing:
https://www.bing.com/search?q=the%20nine%20billion%20names%20of%20god&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&pq=the%20nine%20billion%20names%20of%20god&sc=10-29&sk=&cvid=8D94B09904944F018E34A847E6865FFC
The
Nine Billion Names of God is a science fiction classic,
in
which the theme is that, once all the basic elements of truth are known,
there
is no further reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment