>Even if so the problem I mentioned would remain -- the world
>is not mindless, therefore a description of the world must
>include mentation _as_such_ (that is, not as mere descriptions
>of mechanical behavior), and those mentations must include
>the subjective experiences of the observers.
But that's just bizarre. Who would try to describe 'the world' in its entirety. Science is incapable of any such conceptualisation. Only religious thought could aspire to such absolute sweep.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say that 'the world is not mindless'. Do you mean that there are thinking people in it, or that it is the idea of God? Taking the less grandiose to be the case I would suggest:
Any scientific approach would isolate those aspects of the world that it was investigating. So, when studying the chemical properties of a substance, you would set to one side its physical properties, or its property as an element of the biology of an organism. An experiment of course includes a laboratory, a scientist, some technicians, white coats etc.. But it is not an investigation of those things. Similarly it is not an investigation of mind. That is set aside in the experiment (into, say, lung cancer in beagles). When studying mind, by contrast, you would wish to set aside the merely peripheral questions, like cranial bumps.
>
>The gratuitous assumption of a mindless predecessor of the
>present world produces all sorts of difficulties, like the
>mind-body problem and the appearance of consciousness _ex_
>_nihilo_, which seem superfluous to me. Why bother? Unless
>you like that sort of thing, of course.
What you call the gratuitous assumption of a mindless predecessor is simply an act of abstraction, by which we can isolate one aspect of the world, i.e. the bits that are not mental.
As to the 'problems' that arise. 1. Mind-body problem plainly does not arise, it is set aside. 2. Appearance of consciousness 'ex nihilo': Big deal. All things appear ex nihilo. The human species, every other species, the Earth, the solar system. All things have a beginning.
Your 'it seems superfluous to me' and 'why bother' or 'only if you like that sort of thing' are fakes. You really disapprove of this operation, but want to pretend indifference. So what if it seems superfluous to you, might be the proper answer. The act of abstraction is the basis of advance in the sciences. If you want to opt out of that - though I suppose you will not opt out of its gifts - that's your loss. It is not Yoshie's subjective predilection to look at things in isolation, it is the first move in the development of the natural sciences.
-- James Heartfield Sustaining Architecture in the Anti-Machine Age is available at GBP19.99, plus GBP3.26 p&p from Publications, audacity.org, 8 College Close, Hackney, London, E9 6ER. Make cheques payable to 'Audacity Ltd'. www.audacity.org