"consciousness" refers to too many competing concepts to be of value in analytical discourse.
It's an umbrella term that invokes, depending on the context, some combination of the following concepts: subjective experience, awareness, attention, self-awareness, self-reflectivity, intention (will), and certainly others I can't think of at the moment. If we ask whether a dog has consciousness, that question can mean a dozen things to a dozen people. Better is to ask if a dog has subjective experience, if it is aware, if it can pay attention, if it is self-aware, if it is self-reflective, if it can exercise will. These are all different questions, and more useful because we can talk with some precision. btw, I'm not proposing these sub-concepts in any formal way, just as one possible way (of many) to break down "consciousness" into more useful sub-concepts. I would be in favor of abolishing the word "consciousness" from analytical discourse because of its total lack of precision. Terren --- On Wed, 11/12/08, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hmmmm.... interesting angle. Everything you say from this > point on seems to be predicated on the idea that a person > can *choose* to define it any way they want, and then run > with their definition. > > I notice that this is not possible with any other > scientific concept - we don't just define an electron as > "Your Plastic Pal Who's Fun To Be With" and > then start drawing conclusions. > > The same is true of "consciousness". ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com