G K GRAY (gord at homostudy.win-uk.net) wrote:
:: >Interestingly, that last comment itself is "odd." Personal _feeling_
: >as to whether or not something is "odd" might not be all that useful
: >for any purpose, except perhaps for the observer. Or more aptly, any
: >oddity is, and can only be "odd" in reference to some arbitrary
: >personal norm.
: >
: >Ultimately, the notation of it conveys no information whatsoever to
: >anyone, except perhaps to the noter of the oddity -- i.e. his
: >notation of "oddity" helps to refine his own definition of reality
: >.... in some sense it permits a truer localization of his own
: >"reality". A refinement of his own hallucination.
: >
: >But interestingly enough (or oddly enough as the case may be)
: >*consciousness* doesn't belong on this newsgroup.
: Why should consciousness *not* belong to this newsgroup? After
: all, it is being studied piecemeal by neuroscientists in
: collaboration with experimental psychologists, physicists &c.
Yes, you're right. It is being studied piecemeal by professional
neuroscientists, psychologists, physicists, and the like. But there are
more appropriate newsgroups which are dedicated to *consciousness*
studies. That's where this discussion belongs.
That was my point.
In the same vein, if I wanted to read about Alex Keaton, then I'd read
alt.fan.keaton.alex, or if I wanted to read about scrabble, I'd read
rec.games.scrabble, and if I want to read about consciousness, I'd look to
some other more appropriate group than this one.
Cross-posting to this group in the hope of finding someone who is
interested in this stuff serves no purpose whatsoever.
