RT> RT>> So consciousness is an emergent quality of a complex 
elf-interacting
RT> RT>> system. What is it though? You haven't defined consciousness itself,
RT> RT>> only the mechanisms that possess it.
RT> DM>      ...Another shot!
RT> DM>      ...That quality of being that IS .....AND KNOWS IT THRICE+? !!!
RT> DM>      ...now we must define "knows" 
RT>The self-interacting bit of my statement already covers this. Can you show 
th
RT>consciousness is anything more than the "software running on the 
rdware"?
I personally can't.  I'm reminded of Marvin Minsky's definition of
consciousness:  Mind is what the brain _does_.
RT> DM>      Once the evidence gets TOO THICK, it moves over to science, 
here
RT> DM>      engineers, bean counters and file clerks take over. Personally, 

RT> DM>      see a call for evidence "suborning poetry", .....poetry, a 
strong,
RT> DM>      though often occult component of initial explorations into what
RT> DM>      little tRUTH can be known .....(if any)!
RT>IIUY, you're agreeing then? Plato had no evidence. As you say, once 
philosoph
RT>is bogged down with evidence it finds it hard to move. Does this tell you
RT>anything about philosophy?
It tells me that much of philosophy is obsolete, because you can't
test it.  What is a for-itself?
RT>It seems like you're approaching philosophy as if it is the sounding 
ground f
RT>speculative ideas with the intention of speculating even more. Surely, for
RT>philosophy to be of any use it is to study the logic behind truths?
No, logic is a human invention too.
RT> RT>> from which to make the assertion. Yes, the brain is a physical thing
RT> RT>> and memory may be stored in your brain, but when we die the brain
RT> RT>> reformats itself chemically and thus would destroy the data.
RT> DM>      Because we are ignorant of something makes it neither SO, nor
RT> DM>      not so.
RT>These are the facts David. Physically speaking, nothing escapes decay.
I think you are missing David's point here.  Science is a methodology.
In science you can only include things you can measure.  That's good.
But if you can't measure something, that is not proof that it doesn't
exist.  All it really means is that science has nothing to say about it.
RT> DM>      We may well find all memory is stored "in a somewhere" or
RT> DM>      might even go FAR beyond that.
RT>As every physical thing decays, then this "somewhere" you mention must be
RT>non-physical.
Yup.  But that doesn't imply that it doesn't exist.  As the saying
goes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  Please recall
that that is not an argument in favor of this spiritual realm; it is
only a statement of the limits of science.
 * SLMR 2.1a * .     Dammit Jim, I'm a writer, not a morning person!
--- PCBoard (R) v15.4/M 5 Beta
(1:301/45)
---------------