If anyone has the time and interest, I'd be interested in any feedback.

http://www.peterglasson.com/consciousness.htm

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:53:43 GMT, gmail.com> wrote:

The experience of "consciousness" is a quale, and
like all qualia is a representational illusion. Just as with
the sensor quale "redness", there ain't no "red" out there,
the self quale "conscious", there ain't no "consciousness"
in there.
To consider otherwise is a category error, perhaps socially
acceptable, but an error nonetheless.

These qualia illusions seem caste by low level neural subsystems
of a complex enough brain.

I haven't read the whole thing, but the proposition:

"there exists a knowledge within the individual that is unknown to
consciousness"

suffers from a degree of vagueness and contradiction.

Without being afforded any definitions for consciousness and knowledge we
are left to rely on the vague lexical meanings of those words. The word
conscious drives from the Latin conscire, and translates to 'to know'. To be
conscious means to have (to be aware of) whatever knowledge means.
Whatsoever in the individual that is unknown to consciousness can not itself
be knowledge, since knowledge, whatever else it is, is an awareness that
occurs in consciousness. Perhaps the proposition should be "there exists a
capacity within the individual..."

On Jun 12, 3:53 am, gmail.com> wrote:

The claim that consciousness remains constant (Trantallis)is playing
with words. Might as well claim that a 'mixture' remains constant as
its composition changes.
I agree that 'consciousness' is of the moment but it indisputedly
changes with each momentary 'frame'.
Zinnic

Sir Frederick wrote:

Qualia are sensations or qualities. Consciousness is awareness or
experience of sensations or qualities. You can't have an experience of
consciousness as that would be an experience of experience. Turtles all
the way down. Aren't you making a category mistake?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conciousness
"Consciousness is a state of the nervous systems of humans and other
animals that defies definition, but which may involve thoughts,
sensations, perceptions, moods, emotions, dreams, and an awareness of
self, although not necessarily all of these. Consciousness is a point
of view, an I, or what Thomas Nagel called the existence of "something
that it is like" to be something. Julian Jaynes has emphasized that
"Consciousness is not the same as cognition and should be sharply
distinguished from it. ... The most common error ... is to confuse
consciousness with perception."

Ned Block divides consciousness into phenomenal consciousness, which
is subjective experience itself (being something), and access
consciousness, which refers to the availability of information to
processing systems in the brain (being conscious of something).

Sir Frederick wrote:

Consciousness is perception. Why does Julian Jaynes believe this to be
an error? Have you read his stuff? He actually believes in the absurd
fairy tale of emergence. That is, he believes consciousness magically
arose out of nowhere at a certain point in human evolution. Like many
others he can't seem to understand the trivial point that awareness
requires self-awareness.

On Jun 12, 4:51 pm, "Mike E. Fullerton" remove-techie.com> wrote:

turtoni wrote:

"Mike E. Fullerton" spam-killer-remove-techie.com> wrote in
message news:4%%f4k.28075$gc5.14312@pd7urf2no...