Platt -- > I find the definition as I edited it to be an accurate > description of what I believe. As for the source, > I found it simply by entering "define: consciousness" > in Google. ... As for your implied suggestion that if a > source is is questionable one should avoid it entirely, > I take exception. For example, the current debate > over global warming is a debate over reliable sources > as much as anything else. Same goes for much of > philosophy.
I was taught by someone in my youth to "always consider the source." That Google would lead you to such a bizzare definition of consciousness is unconscionable. Checking the word in my handy Rune's Dictionary of Philosophy, I learned that it stems from the Latin "conscire", to know, to be cognizant of. I also learned that the 18th century Irish mathematical genius Sr. William Hamilton (no relation) claimed that consciousness is indefinable. He said: "Consciousness cannot be defined: we may be ourselves fully aware what consciousness is, but we cannot without confusion convey to others a definition of what we ourselves clearly apprehend. The reason is plain: consciousness lies at the root of all knowledge." There, now. Does that ease your frustration, Platt? > Thanks, Ham. Your glossary of terms helps. > I wonder if others here agree with it. If we don't find out soon, I'd conclude that others don't really care. > I also wonder if you have a "source" for your definitions. :-) Yeah, me. (It's called my "intuitive intellection".) > Always fun to converse with you, Ham. Same here. And do try to avoid stepping on UTOE's paw. Best, Ham Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
