IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

Eidetic imagery and fantasy prone people/the occult

???,,[], oszarazi at cuug.ab.ca
Mon Jul 1 03:11:53 EST 1996


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. 




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net