"Sir Knowitall" wrote:
> Greg Lee <lee at Hawaii.edu> wrote in message
> news:81m4ck$b0s$3 at news.hawaii.edu...> > In sci.lang \"Sir Knowitall\" <fell_followedby_in at one.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > : It is, I maintain, impossible to be equally aware at the same time
> (really
> > : focused and vividly conscious of two activities of two
> "hardware"-absorbing
> > : activites) of any two distinctly different sensory-motor contents of/at
> > ...
> >
> > Why do you seem to yourself to be a single person instead of many?
> Possible
> > answer: you can only recall being vividly conscious of one thing at a time
> > (even though you might have actually been conscious of several). I think
> > you should consider the possibility that people really differ in how
> > they can divide their consciousness and how well they can
> > recollect doing so.
>> We probably don't define/mean consciousness the same way.
>> By the way, (re the subject of this thread) it is possible to think
> lingually more or less well (as in beneficially in some way, efficiently,
> encompassingly, etc.).
yes, but such occurs as a function of shared understanding. when folks
understand, one can discuss 'with great eloquence'. but when folks don't
understand what one's talking about, no matter what one does, one seems to be
communicating 'inefficiently'.
it's some of why folks 'move away from' New stuff. (this's all discussed in AoK,
BTW.)
it's only relatively-small novelty that's 'attractive'.
ken
