[Xmca-l] Re: Fate, Luck and Chance

[Andy Blunden]

No, no! And we are close to agreement here!
LSV says that consciousness is an illusion, and science does not study 
illusions, but that this illusion arises from the "noncoincidence" of 
two objective, material processes, physiology and behaviour, both of 
which can be studied by science (just as light rays and the things 
reflected by light rays can), therefore we can study scientifically how 
these illusions arise and how they mediate human activity! This is 
called psychology. I completely agree with Vygotsky. Don't you?

Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/


Martin John Packer wrote:
> Andy, LSV argues in Crisis that a science does not, cannot, study illusions. Science studies what actually exists, and in doing so seeks to *explain* how illusions occur. Science studies the real candle and the real mirror, in order to *explain* how an image of a candle appears in the mirror.
>
> By saying that consciousness is an illusion, you appear to be suggesting that it cannot be studied scientifically. Or perhaps you find some flaw with LSV's argument?
>
> Martin
>
> On Nov 26, 2014, at 8:21 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>
>   
>> Huw, don't misunderstand me. By saying "consciousness is an illusion" I am saying something very positive about it. It is an illusion which proves more or less adequate for guiding my activity, just as for example, my rear vision mirror is adequate for guiding my driving, because I am "educated" about mirrors. It is useful I think to frankly say that consciousness is an illusion - an illusion with survival value for humans - because it opens a point of agreement between the positivists and the psychologists. We both can say "consciousness is an illusion." OK, let's discuss that.
>>
>> But consciousness differs from a material process like stimuli-response, that is, an unmediated relation between an organism and its environment, between physiology and behaviour. This is what the neuroscientist typically overlooks. We say "yes, the mediating element is just an illusion, which is why you can't find it, but hey! it's a very useful illusion." :)
>>
>> Andy
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *Andy Blunden*
>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>
>>
>> Huw Lloyd wrote:
>>     
>>> I would concur with Andy that 'mysterious' is not useful, but I'd say
>>> Andy's use of 'illusion' has this problem too, because any such illusions
>>> are materially manifested.
>>>
>>>  
>>>       
>
>
>
>
>