"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
