From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert Fri Oct 30 15:18:16 EST 1992
Article 7443 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert
>From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: We've Been Tricked- consciousness
Message-ID: <1992Oct29.222626.25948@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Organization: Northern Illinois University
References: <burt.720224034@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca> <Bwus22.L3L@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> <burt.720392392@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1992 22:26:26 GMT
Lines: 33

In article <burt.720392392@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca> burt@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Burt Voorhees) writes:
>
>Yes, we do need to come up with a definition.
>...
>But in the case of consciousness my own opinion
>is that this question of definition will be extra
>tricky.  In particular, I don't think that it will
>be posssible to define consciousness in terms of
>what it _is_, but only negatively, in terms of
>what it _is not_.

Ok.  I'll start.  Consciousness is not an apple.  It is not sunlight.
It is not a midnight swim.

There, that is a few things it is not.

Face it, you cannot define anything by defining what it is not.  Better
to recognize that consciousness is not currently understood well enough
to be definable.  As long as you avoid making consciousness the center
point of some other argument, that should not be a big problem.

>                   My own preferred definition is that
>consciousness is that which is beyond all possible distinctions.

Well, if you give a mystical definition, you should not be surprised if
it seems mysterious.

>                                  I admit that this is
>a rather radical view, but it does save lots of hand
>waving later on.

Right.  You do all your hand waving up front.



