Short remark interleft in italics
On 2/20/07, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Mikes wrote:
> > Brent:
> > 2 questions (and pls try to take them seriously):
> > 1. do you have a common-sensibly expressible meaning for 'conscious' -
> > in this respect, of machines (computers being so? (conscious of - is
> > easier, but also not obvious).
> Short answer - Not a well defined one.
Which is why it is an interesting question whether the computer that is
> "reading a mind" partakes of consciousness. Consider the extension of this
> technology to a person, who through injury, had no other way of
> communicating except as the computer "read their mind". Would that computer
> be part of consciousness?
The question was "conscious", not "consciousness" which is not the noun
referrung to (being) conscious (maybe of something) - Your injured person is
fully conscious, and possesses her consciousness, although impaired in
communication. Aiding by a device participates in the conscious activity
(you may exted it to her consciousness). Part of it: yes. My question was as
without a conscious person's input.
> > 2. The BBC article allows 'scans' to inform about 'theoretical' (or
> > whatever is the appropriate word they use) topics. Do they have a
> > price-list: how many mAmps refer to 'delusional aberration' vs. how many
> > to 'inductive prognostication'?
> Not that I know of.
My point. News in the media usually miss the 'real' information and talk
'per apices' in news-level. They aim at the emotionally influenceable purse
of the audience, not the (scientific??) information about the topics. Not a
priviledge of the US media.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at