I agree with you. The brain is part of the body and so it's a body-body issue. As a prominent biologist friend said, "Biology does not stop at the neck". So either I said it wrong or you took it wrong. Cheerskep scores again with his "muddled" charge. WC
--- On Wed, 10/1/08, Luc Delannoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Luc Delannoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Consciousness Assayed > To: [email protected] > Date: Wednesday, October 1, 2008, 2:28 PM > I would not count cartesianism out. The brain-body question > has replaced the mind-body question. IMHO it's just > plain neo-cartesianism. We are a minority working on the > body-body question. > > Best > > Luc > > > > WC wrote: > > > With respect to definition, If consciousness is > nothing > > except living then it is nothing at all. > > > > It's rather quaint to speak of pure consciousness, > > brute consciousness and sure consciousness. We > can't > > blame Peirce for that because he had to work in the > dark > > regarding how the brain functions. Nowadays, the > Cartesian > > mind-body split that relies on the division of reason > from > > emotion or emotion from imagination is largely put > aside, > > except in religious beliefs that assert a spirit world > or > > life after death of the body (like Peirce). But Peirce > did > > seem to see necessary interlinking among his three > types of > > consciousness.
