From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff Tue Nov 26 12:31:31 EST 1991
Article 1500 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff
>From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: MIND, BRAIN, CONCIOUSNESS
Message-ID: <5682@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 22 Nov 91 20:33:59 GMT
References: <1991Oct29.214816.23349@timessqr.gc.cuny.edu> <37577@shamash.cdc.com>
Reply-To: jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton)
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 13

In article <37577@shamash.cdc.com> map@svl.cdc.com writes:
>The concept of consciousness as such can't be defined (except
>ostensively), because it is a self-evident, irreducible fact that is 
>implicit in all knowledge, including definitions. [And by "irreducible" 
>I don't mean that no explanation of the physical conditions of 
>consciousness is possible].  Consciousness is one of the facts that is 
>at the base of all knowledge, from which all knowledge arises.  To define 
>a concept is to reduce it to its antecedent concepts, and nothing is 
>antecedent to something at the base of all knowledge, as is consciousness.   

How long will it take people in this group to realize they're
getting lessons in Objectivism?  (It came out in the perception
part of the thread, but not in this, the consciousness part.)


