John K Clark wrote:
"Matt Mahoney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
It seems to me the problem is
defining consciousness, not testing for it.
And it seems to me that beliefs of this sort are exactly the reason
philosophy is in such a muddle. A definition of consciousness is not
needed, in fact unless you're a mathematician where they can be of some
use, one can lead a full rich rewarding intellectually life without
having a good definition of anything. Compared with examples
definitions are of trivial importance.
On the contrary, in this case I have argued that it is exactly the lack
of a clear definition of what "consciousness" is supposed to be, that
causes so much of the problem of trying to explaining it.
Further, I have suggested that the C problem can be solved once we
understand *why* we have so much trouble saying what it is. I have
given an explicit, complete explanation for what consciousness is, which
starts out from a resolution of the definition-difficulty.
I note that Nick Humphrey has recently started to say something very
similar.
Richard Loosemore
-------------------------------------------
singularity
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=96140713-a54b2b
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
