David Dyer-Bennet wrote: > Frank Mayhar <frank at exit.com> writes: > > I'm beginning to suspect that the subjective perception (the "I" that > > thinks and the self-awareness) is an illusion. So if that's the case, > > they _don't_ "hook up in the middle." You go from the complexity of > > the low-level stuff straight to the high-level stuff in one leap, since > > in a way the high-level stuff doesn't really exist. (I know that I'm > > overstating a bit but I think the point is valid.) > That raises the always-troublesome issue of "an illusion *of what*", > though. Close your eyes. Think of yourself thinking (it's easier if one is accustomed to introspection). Feel yourself, your "self-ness," your sense of identity. _That_ would be the illusion. That sense of self-ness and identity. That sense of an "I" that perceives. (This is one idea, though, that I would really like to be wrong about, btw.) > I like the phrase "Consciousness is an emergent phenomemon of > the brain", but I'm not sure how much it really explains. I think it's pretty much a complicated way of saying "it just happens." > But then > we're up against the nastiest area of metaphysics, so I guess it's to > be expected that things are a bit peculiar. Um, yeah. :-P This is all a very good way to tie ones brain in large and very complicated knots. -- Frank Mayhar frank at exit.com http://www.exit.com/ Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/