In article <4jua1h$jj9 at newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
zamanlf at aol.com (Zamanlf) writes:
>>John,
>
...
> The same is true of consciousness. The breakthrough in discovering
>the mechanism which produces consciousness simply will not be made by
>anyone who insists that he or she first be given a faultless definition of
>consciousness.
I never said "faultless." I said "usefull, rational and objective." I can't
see any serious scientist trying to explain consciousness, or any other
phenomenon, unless there is a way to tell if any arbitrarily selected object
exhibits that phenomenon at any particular time. If there is no plausible
definition of consciuosness that uniquely ties it animals with "brain waves"
then there is no reason to suppose that a relation between the two is worth
the time, money and effort of investigating.
>>>Fred
>
john
---
John Edstrom | edstrom @ slugo.hmsc.orst.edu
http://www.hmsc.orst.edu/~edstrom
"Lurker" at BioMOO (bioinfo.weizmann.ac.il:8888)
Hatfield Marine Science Center
2030 S. Marine Science Drive
Newport, Oregon 97365-5296
wk: (541) 867 0197
fx: (541) 867 0138
