Consciousness & Space-Time

[Angrboda]

(bolding added)

Why don't you start with the preliminary of demonstrating that consciousness is something to which the verb "to be" even applies. Consciousness neither is nor isn't in two places because it has no such "being" that it requires "a place" to be (aside from in the cognitions of the machine).

Maybe there'sa subtlety that went right over my head here... but aren't you answering your own speculation by what you said in brackets? You believe that our conscience/awareness arises from the material brain. Correct? If so, then where is the place within it where everything comes together to produce the awareness I experience? It comes from material things, so naturally I'd be able to spot the materials that are the conscience, no? If so, then it is true to say that the "I" can simultaneously be in two places at once, since "I" occupy a volume in space?

It doesn't "arise," and it doesn't come together anywhere (this is what Dennett refers to as "the illusion of the Cartesian theater"). The idea that there is a "something" that is "somewhere" that is "experiencing" (having qualia) is a false belief. It is assigning ontological properties to something that doesn't have those properties. You are thinking of consciousness as having specific properties and existing in certain ways; much like a God that cannot exist, you're looking for the existence of a consciousness that, in the way you describe it, is just a fiction. Asking where in the brain consciousness is located is akin to asking where in the brain a perfect circle exists, such that your brain can use it for reference; or where in your brain the scientific method exists, so that you can compare it to other methods; or where in your brain your belief that "there is no whale within three inches of you" is located, even though you didn't have that belief a moment ago; these aren't "things" that need to be explained in terms of "where" because they are nothing more than mental constructs. I think you're right though, you simply don't get it. I find that few people do "get it" as most have trouble disconnecting their prior metaphysical and ontological assumptions about the subject. It's hard enough to explain first person, and some people's minds just aren't going to "get it," so I'm giving up at this point, as your complete failure to even recognize that their was something "to get" leaves me discouraged at the prospects. I should have known better than to even try.


Enjoy your conversation.