In article <4q7ohmbmrsc.fsf at hp>, ??? (oszarazi at hp.cuug.ab.ca) writes:
>> > What are these beliefs then? I'm referring to a very narrow range of
> > beliefs. Please let me know what your beliefs are in detail, then I might
> > be able to tell you if I still feel that they're odd.
>>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.
Gord
