Le 17/10/2014 15:03, Bob Masta a �crit :> On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 01:08:29 -0500, Tim Wescott > <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote: > > <snip> > >> Or perhaps none of us are conscious, but just think we are. > > I've been following the 'consciousness' debates for decades > now, and have yet to see a decent working definition that > isn't circular or woo-woo. (Like those involving 'qualia' > and similar mush.)What about: I know that there is me and the rest of the world.> And definitely no definition that all sides agree upon. > That in itself seems to indicate that consciousness may be a > construct we create to inflate ouselves above "mere > animals", who are always presumed to lack it. >You can be conscious or conscious that you are conscious. I don't think animals are the latter.
Online · Live + on demand
February 9-11, 2027
Price goes up Nov 1: register now to lock in today's rate
Register Now →
Stolen from another group
Started by ●October 15, 2014
Reply by ●October 17, 20142014-10-17
Reply by ●October 17, 20142014-10-17
On 10/17/2014 12:35 PM, Lanarcam wrote:> Le 17/10/2014 15:03, Bob Masta a �crit : >> On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 01:08:29 -0500, Tim Wescott >> <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>> Or perhaps none of us are conscious, but just think we are. >> >> I've been following the 'consciousness' debates for decades >> now, and have yet to see a decent working definition that >> isn't circular or woo-woo. (Like those involving 'qualia' >> and similar mush.) > > What about: I know that there is me and the rest of the world. > >> And definitely no definition that all sides agree upon. >> That in itself seems to indicate that consciousness may be a >> construct we create to inflate ouselves above "mere >> animals", who are always presumed to lack it. >> > You can be conscious or conscious that you are conscious. > > I don't think animals are the latter.I don't think humans are the latter. -- Rick
Reply by ●October 18, 20142014-10-18
On Friday, October 17, 2014 3:27:55 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote:> On 10/17/2014 12:35 PM, Lanarcam wrote: > > Le 17/10/2014 15:03, Bob Masta a �crit : > >> On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 01:08:29 -0500, Tim Wescott > >> <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote: > >> > >> <snip> > >> > >>> Or perhaps none of us are conscious, but just think we are. > >> > >> I've been following the 'consciousness' debates for decades > >> now, and have yet to see a decent working definition that > >> isn't circular or woo-woo. (Like those involving 'qualia' > >> and similar mush.) > > > > What about: I know that there is me and the rest of the world. > > > >> And definitely no definition that all sides agree upon. > > >> That in itself seems to indicate that consciousness may be a > >> construct we create to inflate ourselves above "mere > >> animals", who are always presumed to lack it. > >> > > You can be conscious or conscious that you are conscious. > > > > I don't think animals are the latter. > > I don't think humans are the latter. >so none of us are aware that we are conscious? r b-j
Reply by ●October 18, 20142014-10-18
On 10/17/2014 11:41 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:> On Friday, October 17, 2014 3:27:55 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote: >> On 10/17/2014 12:35 PM, Lanarcam wrote: >>> Le 17/10/2014 15:03, Bob Masta a �crit : >>>> On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 01:08:29 -0500, Tim Wescott >>>> <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>>> Or perhaps none of us are conscious, but just think we are. >>>> >>>> I've been following the 'consciousness' debates for decades >>>> now, and have yet to see a decent working definition that >>>> isn't circular or woo-woo. (Like those involving 'qualia' >>>> and similar mush.) >>> >>> What about: I know that there is me and the rest of the world. >>> >>>> And definitely no definition that all sides agree upon. >> >>>> That in itself seems to indicate that consciousness may be a >>>> construct we create to inflate ourselves above "mere >>>> animals", who are always presumed to lack it. >>>> >>> You can be conscious or conscious that you are conscious. >>> >>> I don't think animals are the latter. >> >> I don't think humans are the latter. >> > > so none of us are aware that we are conscious?In the general case, yes. -- Rick
Reply by ●October 18, 20142014-10-18
robert bristow-johnson wrote:> On Friday, October 17, 2014 3:27:55 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote: >> On 10/17/2014 12:35 PM, Lanarcam wrote: >>> Le 17/10/2014 15:03, Bob Masta a �crit : >>>> On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 01:08:29 -0500, Tim Wescott >>>> <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>>> Or perhaps none of us are conscious, but just think we are. >>>> >>>> I've been following the 'consciousness' debates for decades >>>> now, and have yet to see a decent working definition that >>>> isn't circular or woo-woo. (Like those involving 'qualia' >>>> and similar mush.) >>> >>> What about: I know that there is me and the rest of the world. >>> >>>> And definitely no definition that all sides agree upon. >> >>>> That in itself seems to indicate that consciousness may be a >>>> construct we create to inflate ourselves above "mere >>>> animals", who are always presumed to lack it. >>>> >>> You can be conscious or conscious that you are conscious. >>> >>> I don't think animals are the latter. >> >> I don't think humans are the latter. >> > > so none of us are aware that we are conscious? > > r b-j >It's more like we're not-concious that we're not-aware. I pretty much buggered the contrapositive there, didn't I? <expletive deleted> -- Les Cargill
Reply by ●October 18, 20142014-10-18
"robert bristow-johnson" wrote in message news:08dffd2a-bc88-4925-a673-a8d04836d88a@googlegroups.com... On Friday, October 17, 2014 3:27:55 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote:> On 10/17/2014 12:35 PM, Lanarcam wrote: > > Le 17/10/2014 15:03, Bob Masta a �crit : > >> On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 01:08:29 -0500, Tim Wescott > >> <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote: > >> > >> <snip> > >> > >>> Or perhaps none of us are conscious, but just think we are. > >> > >> I've been following the 'consciousness' debates for decades > >> now, and have yet to see a decent working definition that > >> isn't circular or woo-woo. (Like those involving 'qualia' > >> and similar mush.) > > > > What about: I know that there is me and the rest of the world. > > > >> And definitely no definition that all sides agree upon. > > >> That in itself seems to indicate that consciousness may be a > >> construct we create to inflate ourselves above "mere > >> animals", who are always presumed to lack it. > >> > > You can be conscious or conscious that you are conscious. > > > > I don't think animals are the latter. > > I don't think humans are the latter. >so none of us are aware that we are conscious? r b-j Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum
Reply by ●October 18, 20142014-10-18
On Saturday, October 18, 2014 9:27:08 AM UTC-4, Phil Martel wrote:> "robert bristow-johnson" wrote in message > news:08dffd2a-bc88-4925-a673-a8d04836d88a@googlegroups.com... > > On Friday, October 17, 2014 3:27:55 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote: > > On 10/17/2014 12:35 PM, Lanarcam wrote: > > > Le 17/10/2014 15:03, Bob Masta a �crit : > > >> On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 01:08:29 -0500, Tim Wescott > > >> <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> <snip> > > >> > > >>> Or perhaps none of us are conscious, but just think we are. > > >> > > >> I've been following the 'consciousness' debates for decades > > >> now, and have yet to see a decent working definition that > > >> isn't circular or woo-woo. (Like those involving 'qualia' > > >> and similar mush.) > > > > > > What about: I know that there is me and the rest of the world. > > > > > >> And definitely no definition that all sides agree upon. > > > > >> That in itself seems to indicate that consciousness may be a > > >> construct we create to inflate ourselves above "mere > > >> animals", who are always presumed to lack it. > > >> > > > You can be conscious or conscious that you are conscious. > > > > > > I don't think animals are the latter. > > > > I don't think humans are the latter. > > > > so none of us are aware that we are conscious? > > > Cogito cogito ergo cogito sumwoot!! that's the funniest. r b-j
