Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.psychology,sci.physics,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.bio,rec.arts.books,comp.ai.philosophy,alt.consciousness
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!utgpu!pindor
From: pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: Why scientists popularize premature speculations?
Message-ID: <D0GKqA.EKx@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCC Public Access
References: <3bd8s0$1q2@pobox.csc.fi> <JMC.94Dec3140227@white.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il> <D0CorF.I4t@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <3c2j1e$cg7@decaxp.harvard.edu>
Distribution: inet
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 20:54:09 GMT
Lines: 31
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:97409 sci.psychology:31163 sci.physics:102680 sci.philosophy.meta:15388 sci.bio:23789 comp.ai.philosophy:23334

In article <3c2j1e$cg7@decaxp.harvard.edu>,
Ron Maimon <rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU> wrote:
>In article <D0CorF.I4t@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>, pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
>|>
>|> we _know_ that we are conscious,
>|> without involving sight, hearing, etc.
>
>I don't believe this statement.
>
>I don't believe you even believe this statement.
>
>Without the constant stimulation of the outside world, it would be impossible
>to stay "concious". Your brain would just settle into a steady-state, and
>you would not be doing anything that could be remotely classified as
>"thinking"
>
>we only know we are concious because of our senses.
>
However we do not "sense" our consciousness with, at least usual, senses 
(perhaps with the so called sixth sense). Other problems (phenomena) tackled
with the "scientific methods" are based on the evidence coming from our
senses.
>-- 
>Ron Maimon

Andrzej
-- 
Andrzej Pindor                        The foolish reject what they see and 
University of Toronto                 not what they think; the wise reject
Instructional and Research Computing  what they think and not what they see.
pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca                           Huang Po
