Brent, The main issue here clearly pertains to any claim that we can discover the nature of the relationship between elements in consciousness and their neural correlates (I have deliberately avoided using the phrase "underlying correlates" as that priority has yet to be established). I don't think that prediction is the issue here, but rather explanation. Because of the non-empirical nature of consciousness I argue that whatever explanation we might propose, we cannot test that explanation along scientific lines, and so we cannot conduct a scientific investigation into the mechanism for that correlation. All we are left with is metaphysical conjecture. Do you feel there is a weak point in my argument? Andy.

Hi Andy, I like what you have to say about the "problem of other minds" and the "combination problem". It sounds like you would agree that there are elemental qualities of mind that can be 'combined' to create a unified conscious experience. So, given this assumption, would it not be possible to first, discover what this relationship is, between elements of consciousness, and their underlying correlates, and thereby reliably predict when they exist in other minds? (in other words, the week form of effing the ineffable as described [http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/28 in this camp]). And secondly, just as these parts of the mind in the left hemisphere are joined together with parts of the mind in the right hemisphere, would it not be possible to use the same merging mechanism, to artificially merge multiple minds, so both were aware of the other, just as our right and left hemispheres are aware of the other, and so on? This being the stronger version of effing the ineffable. And if you can do that, as I believe you are predicting, would not consciousness be both very predictable, approachable via science, and so on? Brent Allsop