Well, this fellow illustrates very well why one must define one's terms
or give up the delusion that one is saying anything significant.
Obviously, according to his argument, only the video camera could be
aware of whether it was aware. ORFNUNGEN6's awareness is limited to
his own experience, so he doesn't know diddly about my experience or
the video camera's experience.
Not a very "useful" definition of "consciousness" (or of whatever..)
F. Frank LeFever, Ph.D.
New York Neuropsychology Group
In <19990716100422.08775.00000987 at ng-fx1.aol.com> orfnugen6 at aol.com
(ORFNUGEN6) writes:
>>"Pål Iversen" <ppr.sogndalsregionen at sf.telia.no> wrote:
>> So maybe it's time to define "consciousness"?
>>Consciousness is sentience, emotions, feelings,
>sensations etc. Consciousness really can't be
>defined anymore than the taste of cinamen can
>be defined or the color blue. Semantics is ciruclar.
>At some point it all comes down to direct experience.
>>> Do you ask: "Are ants aware of themselves"?
>>The word "aware" has too different meanings. One
>meaning is the superficial meaning. A robot can
>proprogramed to be aware of its dimensions and
>the place it takes up in space, this is a different
>kind of awareness from that which humans experience.
>Humans are not just aware of their thoughts in a
>mechanical manner. Humans have subjective
>awareness. Actually, there are no words to explain
>human awareness, it is something that must be
>experienced. But clearly humans are aware of
>themselves in a differrent way then a video camera
>pointing at its image in a mirror is aware of itself.
>>
