Re: Consciousness: A Useless Hypothesis

From: Robert J. Bradbury (
Date: Mon Jan 21 2002 - 00:38:05 MST

On Sun, 20 Jan 2002, J. R. Molloy wrote:

> No problem, I assume they are sentient and intelligent. That suffices.


> 1 a: the quality or state of being aware especially of something
> within oneself
> b: the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state,
> or fact
> c: AWARENESS; especially: concern for some social or political cause
> 2: the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition,
> and thought :MIND
> 3: the totality of conscious states of an individual
> 4: the normal state of conscious life <regained consciousness>
> 5: the upper level of mental life of which the person is aware as
> contrasted with unconscious processes

> 1: responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
> 2: AWARE
> 3: finely sensitive in perception or feeling

I would argue that "consciousness" is a much more complex term
than "sentient" -- if only because it allows for the fact that
there may be "unconscious processes" at work.

If the primary goal of sentient and intelligent individuals is
"survival", and "unconscious processes", e.g. the fight-or-flight
response are *essential* for survival, then discarding them as
unnecessary or irrelevant will be an interesting experiment.

I'll be reflecting on this when I'm 2000 y.o., sitting on a nice
yacht in the Carribean, feasting on cracked lobster, sipping on
champagne, reflecting on the loss of J.R. in the year 2017 when
he was sucked up by a tornado while consciously thinking about
which direction to run in.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:35 MST