I'm not saying the guy has nailed it -- merely posting the link to show that at least one scientist has taken up the problem that is consciousness -- and that, to me, it indicates that maybe just maybe science will begin to hone its definitions and see how they're use of language has kept them from having clarity about "knowingness." If one sees no difference between "awareness" and "consciousness," one isn't going to get far in studying "mind."
Not that I know enough to claim I can judge the clarity of others or even myself in this regard, but I do have a dogged determination to promote the concept "The Absolute" until they pry it from my cold dead hands. And not that I'm some sort of Socrates, but that I am Socrates' biggest fan and am going to just keep defending his best argument: that he knew nothing like no one ever knew nothing and therefore the know-somethingists were conceptual troglodytes dancing around a campfire to please the gods of the intellect. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a "real" scientist who is an accepted peer -- not a crack-pot. > > > > > > Why do you assume he couldn't be both? > > I just realised what you mean by crackpot - one of those guys that > thinks the pyramids were built by astral aliens? No, I don't think > this guy is like that, he's just going outside the box to create > new ways of looking at the dark matter problem. > > As our friend Deepak might have said: "Imagination illuminates > great space time events" >
