[MD] subject / object logic

[Ham Priday]

Platt --

> I find the definition as I edited it to be an accurate
> description of what I believe. As for the source,
> I found it simply by entering "define: consciousness"
> in Google. ... As for your implied suggestion that if a
> source is is questionable one should avoid it entirely,
> I take exception. For example, the current debate
> over global warming is a debate over reliable sources
> as much as anything else. Same goes for much of
> philosophy.

I was taught by someone in my youth to "always consider the source."  That 
Google would lead you to such a bizzare definition of consciousness is 
unconscionable.

Checking the word in my handy Rune's Dictionary of Philosophy, I learned 
that it stems from the Latin "conscire", to know, to be cognizant of.  I 
also learned that the 18th century Irish mathematical genius Sr. William 
Hamilton (no relation) claimed that consciousness is indefinable.  He said: 
"Consciousness cannot be defined: we may be ourselves fully aware what 
consciousness is, but we cannot without confusion convey to others a 
definition of what we ourselves clearly apprehend.  The reason is plain: 
consciousness lies at the root of all knowledge."  There, now.  Does that 
ease your frustration, Platt?

> Thanks, Ham. Your glossary of terms helps.
> I wonder if others here agree with it.

If we don't find out soon, I'd conclude that others don't really care.

> I also wonder if you have a "source" for your definitions. :-)

Yeah, me.  (It's called my "intuitive intellection".)

> Always fun to converse with you, Ham.

Same here.
And do try to avoid stepping on UTOE's paw.

Best,
Ham