objectification
subjectification
two events?
yes - Mi a thought that leads to Pi a physical event
and the argument Pi an expression of Mi
so two events
one subjective
one objective
i.e. the thought of reaching for a glass
the actual reaching
one an expression of the other
yes
two events
the thought the act
the connection -
brain activity?
both brain events
an explanation
yes
for a common ground
but different kinds of events still -
one an event of intention - whatever this comes to in
brain states
the other an event of action - of movement
and both events - known
the knowing - where does this fit in?
I know I intend
I know I move my arm
both events covered by -
instances of knowing
a third event?
the intentional state is known in its occurrence
it could not be intentional - and not known
the act of movement known too - in occurrence?
yes I think so
the knowing accompanies both events
knowing as a brain state - yes
how though do we characterize it? (brain state of not)
it is an open state
a general condition of any conscious act -
it is not ontologically confined
it doesn't just happen under specific conditions
it is a general condition
this knowing
and further
it is by its nature revelatory
we know - we know
which is to just say we know
such is knowing
it is knowing in a particular sense
but its basis is universal and unbounded
we know
and know that we know
and we know that we know that we know
etc.
knowing as an open state
all inclusive
of the object
of the subject
knowing - cannot be exhausted
there is no boundary
so knowing - or consciousness if a brain state -
is the brain state in which all specific acts of
knowing take place
the brain state idea - is really a metaphor for
grounding events
giving of common ground to all disparate conscious
(and by implication) non-conscious events
in a way it's rather quaint
for we only know 'in consciousness'
we do not observe it
if a brain state we could never know it as such
we could only place it - alongside some picture
of brain activity and argue a co-relation
this kind of knowledge is hypothesized
and frankly arbitrary - it can be no other way -
for we can't step out of consciousness to see it
it is the seeing
a world outside of this is by definition - unknown -
unknowable -
what we know is what we are conscious of
in this sense we can only be conscious of_________
we are not conscious of what consciousness is
only that it is
and to suggest otherwise is rather absurd
