Consciousness & Space-Time

[Angrboda]

Obviously, the Anton-Babinski sufferer is not actually blind, and the doctors are mistaken, because she has "primal knowledge" that she is seeing things.

Using severely damaged brains to argue against a healthy brains ability to make accurate assessments of their internal state of mind makes for a very week case. So what exactly is going on inside the head of Anton-Babiniski sufferer? I haven’t a clue. Yet I find it hard to believe that they do not experience something directly. The plasticity of the brain has been well documented. One area taking up the functions of damaged areas. I am not suggesting that another area of the brain has taken up visual processing, but it is conceivable that a combination of imagination and memory could be generating sensations. Or the patient is compelled to issue verbal reports for non-existent sensations. These and all other interpretations, including your suggestions, are highly speculative.

You seem to be playing both ends against the middle, here, Chad. If a damaged brain can be mistaken about the nature of its experience, and its unreliability is dependent on the integrity of the physical mechanism, it would seem that you require demonstrating that the mechanism is indeed reliable when intact, as well as acknowledging that the physical mechanism is determinative of its reliability. This you haven't done. If you'll remember, my goal was to demonstrate the unreliability of introspection, which I've done. I need not demonstrate anything more. (Though for the benefit of others here, I will point in the direction of a) intentionality (consciousness is always consciousness "of" something; I'm more than happy to grant the brute fact of experience, however without any reliability with respect to what consciousness is conscious of, we have no reliability as to the nature of consciousness [for in order to even begin to be knowledge, knowledge of consciousness is derived by "consciousness of consciousness," which I think, at minimum, I've demonstrated we do not have any valid reason for believing to be reliable; consciousness' testimony about itself is unreliable], and b) I haven't read it myself, but Dennett's influential essay "Quining Qualia" likely has relevant things to say as well.)


And no, I'm not overly invested in continuing. I'm not well psychologically, the ideas I'm trying to communicate may not be communicable in this instance, and on top of that I have people like you coming and taking cheap shots at me, likely simply "because you can." So, no, I'm not particularly interested in your reindeer games today.