Go live Time :
August 01, 2008 6:18:29 AM
Propose modification based on this version Value: In ordinary usage, and in the dictionary, the term "consciousness" refers to the awareness of animals, particularly higher animals such as mankind. It seems, when one wishes to discuss it as a science there is a struggle for definition because the ordinary usage and the scientific referal are not the same, not intended to be the same-one is related to an outline of scientific study of experience of the world (scientific study is lso an experience of the world), the other refers to the experience of the world nominally. Neither "scientific study", nor "consciousness" as lingual expressions, entail logical/mathematical analysis of concepts applied to the empirical. A study of "scientific study" entails the description of a human activity. A study of consciousness may entail the scientific and thus entails a scientific study of a topic that entails activity-hence study, hence scientific study. Thus definition is difficult to arive at for the purpose of scientific knowledge. The study of consciousness then must entail t least two different usages, intended meanings, of the term "consciousness". Why one wishes to begin a scientific investigation from this angle of "conceptual consciousness", thinking about the ordinary usage, as ppears tobe the case, with an advance understanding of the possible plural meanings and with the intent to employ definition vaguely hoping to extract something usefull from a very discontinuous "soup" of items appears to me to be incompetent. There does not exist in reality available spaces to accomodate all the endeavors and branches of such a suggested investigation that grows outwardly to be increased as a tree can be seen to occupy more space over time and not contained, or potentially contained-any scientific endeavor must be potentially contained. This incompetance seems to reflect, also, many modern trends in behavior, behavior in scientific investigation in which a sound sense of the topic is not present. It is not even of consensus whether the world is open or closed (the theory of relativity has the two notions combined). It is not logically impossible that a sound answer to the question of openness entails a living (as the one we occupy) or a deceased definition of the world( and consciuosness). In paper experiment this is acceptable, in a laboratory where one applies force to nature to test it, it is not! much less is its' application outside the laboratory. Yet the potential consequences are not slightly considered as if the world works in a straight line of logic -this is illogical, especially considering the frustrations encountered when studying science. Though maybe fun to do, science investigation must be thought through entirely in advance, correct non overlapping terms must be applied, one who speaks simple english must know what is construed, purposes, goals and limitations. Scientifically consciousness, I think is meant as a study of the senses related to pathologies(which does entail some philosophical knowing), and not as an answer for the paradoxes the ordinary man, or the philosopher. The pen/scapel cannot be tossed around at a dart board =equals science/world thinking that misses, beyond a defined target area are permitted or are harmless in a society that has already gained monetarily from a deleterious, hard to define and argue, civil permissiveness that is apriorily granted. A conceptual dart board of any kind cannot be logically conceived of, does not exist, that contains only science to its' total target area. It takes more than thoughfully construed and applied law to pemitt a free society-it takes a certain conscious awareness suited to allow it, voluntary compliance with unspoken agreement. A scientific study employing the terms consciousness, awarness is by definition poorly defined and demonstrates from the first step a misunderstanding of what ones' real freedoms are and what must be held sacred for the survival of the whole.