On 3/20/07, John M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> it seems you apply some hard 'Occami\sation' to consckiousness: as I see
> you consider it as 'being conscious - vs. unconscious'. The physiological
> (mediacal?) way.
> In my experience from reading and intenrnet-discussing Ccness for over 15
> years - most researchers consider it more than that: the noun (Ccness) is
> only partially related to the adjective (conscious - maybe "of")..
> This is why I included into my identification of it not only
> "acknowledgement" referring to the awareness-part, but also 'and response
> to' which implies activity in some process.
> Considering our world as a process it has not too much merit to identify
> an importqan noumenon (still not agreed upon its content) as a
> snapshot-static image of a state.
> Some equate Ccness with life itself (good idea, life is another
> Your anesthesiologistic version has its audience, but so has the wider
> sense as well.
> John M
I thought my sense was wider. You can be conscious even though you are not
actually analysing sensory input, remembering things from your past, and so
on. And I'm not sure that life can be equated with consciousness because you
are still alive, and even your neurons are still for the most part going
about their business, when you are asleep or anaesthetised.
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