Time to say Hi!

[Gee]

1. The difference between life and AI. Is it mostly about "want"? I think so.

Please elaborate...
All life possesses an instinctive "want" to continue, and will do anything in its power to follow this goal. It will eat, sleep, reproduce, adapt, evolve, and do whatever is necessary to continue. This is the "want" that I refer to.

2. Levels of consciousness/awareness in species and how this can be determined.

Unsure what you mean here.
Levels of consciousness can be determined by observing species. As an example; a small house spider will run toward my arm because it senses food, but does not seem to be aware of the differences in my size and it's size, so it is probably quite surprised when I smash it. It is not so difficult to determine what a species is aware of, or conscious of, if we simply apply logic to this idea.

3. Panpsychism--what is missing from this idea?

If this is how you define it: The term "panpsychism" has its origins with the term pan, meaning "throughout" or "everywhere", and psyche, meaning "soul" as the unifying center of the mental life of us humans and other living creatures." I believe every living thing has a soul that makes it 'alive.' When it dies the soul goes back to the other side.
I did not ask for a definition; I asked what was missing. Did you understand the question? Do you understand the concept?

4. Hormones, delusions, and consciousness--is there a connection?

Not so much hormones, but I can see a correlation between delusions and consciousness, with the thought of them being inversely proportional.
Almost no one sees this relationship, and it would take a thread to explain it.

5. Bacteria and endospores--are they aware?

No. They do not have consciousness. They simply exist.
Bacteria that can turn themselves into something that gives all appearances of being inanimate (endospores) then return to life after being in this state for tens of thousands of years when they find themselves in an environment that is conducive to life. So why does an endospore turn itself back into bacteria, continue life, eat and reproduce, etc., if it is not aware of that sustaining environment?

8. What is anthropomorphism really? How does it work? Emotional memory v standard memory.

Ethnocentrism, in a word. Memory is complex. There is also body memory.
Ethnocentrism seems to be a very biased explanation and does not explain how anthropomorphism works. Emotional memory actually grows, whereas standard memory diminishes over time. Which does body memory do?

9. -- 13 and 17. These responses are related to religious dogma, and so do not apply in this thread. I use religion to learn about consciousness, but do not accept dogma from any doctrine.

15. Is consciousness internal or external? Or both? Is it something that is real? Does it have properties? Do some species hibernate because of consciousness?

Consciousness is a function of our mind, if we are lucky enough to attain it. It is real, the most real we can emotionally be. Species hibernate not from consciousness, which is a higher-minded faculty, but because of primitive instincts for survival and coding.
You are not talking about consciousness as I understand it. Please review my posts on pages 2 and 3 of this thread; specifically, dated 12/7/12, 8:00 a.m. and 12/8/12, 8:32 p.m.

16. What are ghosts, demons and angels, apparitions, and poltergeists? Are these the same thing?

Don't really believe in all these. :/
Not interested in belief, interested in reality.

18. Mind formation and emotion is there a connection?

Perhaps. How we feel and emote is related to nature and nurture.
I am not discussing psychology here, I am talking about the formation, or creation, of mind as a single distinct entity.

19. Emotion is the motivator, the mover, the thing that causes happening.

Not necessarily. And the more reliable motivator is cognitive certitude.
Certitude requires belief, belief requires emotion. It would help in this conversation if you would study these concepts and how they interrelate.

Gee

Consciousness is awareness. It has a positive connotation because with it comes truth. And truth is good.

Well, I certainly won't argue this.

Gee

[Gee]

Thankyou, It's nice to occasionally get lucky and post something that others can appreciate, I usually rub people the wrong way and get hostility.

The Doc;

I do not guarantee that I will never be hostile, but with you I doubt that I will. You actually listen and think, so most misunderstandings can be resolved. Of course, between us, you have to biggest work load as you are a person of fewer words. Whereas, I follow the premise that nothing can be said with 50 words that can not also be made just as clear with 5,000. (Old lawyers joke)

It has long been noted that rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin. So it is my thought that, if I have the right to upbraid people when they say something that I don't like, then it is also my responsibility to appreciate people when they say something that I do like. It is only fair, and to do otherwise would make me either patronizing or belligerent.

I want to take some time to review your responses, so will answer your posts tomorrow.

Gee

[Gee]

Gee,
1. The difference between life and AI. Is it mostly about "want"? I think so.
What AI? Any AI (artificial intelligence)

2. Levels of consciousness/awareness in species and how this can be determined.
You can't determine the levels of consciousness of other species relative to your own? This is a statement with a question mark at the end, so it is difficult to understand your meaning. Are you asking if it should be determined relative to me? Or are you saying that it can't be determined?


3. Panpsychism--what is missing from this idea?
What is your understanding of this idea? Its not whats missing its what it assumes, I think it adds nothing to the things it thinks are a problem.
I think that Panpsychism does a wonderful job of explaining how the mental could arise from the physical, but it blurs the lines of life and non-life.

4. Hormones, delusions, and consciousness--is there a connection?
Yes, the body. This is a rather glib remark. Did you have to think hard to figure this out?

5. Bacteria and endospores--are they aware?
Of what? In what sense "aware"? See my response two posts up.

6. Any information regarding communication in other species.
Such as? Any information regarding communication in other species.

7. What are pheromones? How do they work?
In insects we thing its chemical receptors. In humans the jury is out that they have much effect at all. You are talking about how they are received; what about how they are dispensed; why they are dispensed; the whole process; how they work?

8. What is anthropomorphism really? How does it work? Emotional memory v standard memory.
Really? Its the view that its sometimes a mistake to attribute human attributes to other objects.
Whats "emotional memory"?
Regarding anthropomorphism, your response is opinion, which has nothing to do with what it is or how it works. Regarding your response to "emotional memory", go to Wiki and look it up. I am not your personal teacher, and I remember specifically asking for intelligent and educated responses.


9. How Christianity divided the tangible from the intangible. Should we have done this?
What do you mean by this? Was it even a rational choice?
After this reply, I will post the Dichotomies for your review in answer to this question.

10. Can the Bible teach us anything about consciousness? What about the rules in the Bible for eating meat? Or Eve's punishment as regards child birth. Are they really about consciousness?
No, but it can teach us much about human behaviour with respect to belief. I disagree and think there is much more there if you know how to look for it, but it would take a thread to explain even a small portion of what is available.

11. What religions are more in line with a philosophical view of consciousness? Is consciousness God? Is soul mind? Dr. Robert G. Brown.
Buddhism I guess as its more a philosophy rather than a religion.
What 'God'?
What "soul'?
After reading Dr. Brown's work, I was surprised to find that Hinduism is actually more in align with my theories of consciousness.

12. Are souls, personal space, and auras really the same thing?
No, the first and last are pretty much non-existent but the middle one is important. If you think so.

13. Has anyone read Dr. Ian Stevenson's work on reincarnation? Is reincarnation possible?
Nope and very doubtful. If you have not read the work, then why are you responding? Do you have another authority on reincarnation? Is this a religious conviction? Or are you responding in ignorance?

14. Is the nervous system internal and instincts external? Why?
What do you mean by this? The CNS is obviously internal in many(all?) creatures and 'instincts' are, in part, learned responses of the CNS but with respect to external data. Instinct, by definition, is innate--not learned. Recently people have decided to assume that there are "learned instincts", but have not bothered to create a delineation between these concepts. Our nervous system tells us what is going on within the body, instincts tell us about things outside of the body. Awareness is supposed to be within the body, but it works through our senses and instincts on what is outside of the body. This strikes me as odd.

And instincts do not work through the nervous system, they work though chemicals, just like emotion does. We call these "instinct" chemicals--hormones or pheromones.

15. Is consciousness internal or external? Or both? Is it something that is real? Does it have properties? Do some species hibernate because of consciousness?
No, some hibernate due to an evolutionary success when dealing with body energy expenditure versus's available food resource.
This is a theory, not fact. I think there is more to this story.

16. What are ghosts, demons and angels, apparitions, and poltergeists? Are these the same thing?
Yes and no, do you think them real?
I think they are as real as anthropomorphism is, and for me, that is saying a lot, as I believe there is an explanation for anthropomorphism.

17. What is the difference between prophesies and premonitions? Can this be real?
Can what be real? The difference between the definitions or that they do what they claim? Both.

18. Mind formation and emotion is there a connection?
Yes, the Body. What do you mean by "emotion"? Great. I will tell all of the little spiders in my house that they have been upgraded to species with minds, as they obviously already have bodies. If you don't know what "emotion" means, get a dictionary. I present no special attachments to the word.

19. Emotion is the motivator, the mover, the thing that causes happening.
Only if you allow it to or you're not aware that this is your preferred way of thinking. See my response two posts up.

20. Ignacio Matte Blanco, or anyone else who has studied the subconscious mind.
Why just one? Because I don't know of another. You can look Blanco up in Wiki. There is not a lot there, but what is there is very interesting.

21. Can the intangible affect the tangible?
By definition, no.
Are we talking power or influence?
Give me an example? I know someone, who makes a ton of money and vacations on islands at the expense of businesses. Why? Because she is a motivational speaker. She makes people believe that they can, then sales and statistics bear the truth of her worth, and she is rewarded. Do you really think that businesses would put out that kind of money if it didn't work? What about coaches in sports? Believing in something seems to influence the outcome.

22. Did the ancients know more than we do now about consciousness?
Again, what do you mean by "consciousness"? You can either review my posts in this thread or go to the SEP (on-line Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) look up Consciousness in the Table of Contents, like I did, and study it.

24. Herding, flocking, schooling, and swarming species as they relate to the "mob" mentality. How does it work? Pheromones? Auras?
With the insects it appears to be chemical, with a large chunk of the others its eyesight and also pressure. A lot of what you state is theory, I am not convinced.

What is consciousness, really?
Its really being a body with senses in an external environment. But it can get more complicated depending upon the dynamics or interactions of the internal subsystems. Add a language and it gets real knotty.

I believe that it is much more. Please do some studying before making your responses. Thank you for your interest.

Gee

[Gee]

Arising_uk;

Following is a post that I wrote last year describing the Dichotomies. It should answer your question regarding the division of the tangible and intangible in (9.)

I have been told that there is an unresolvable problem with consciousness that is 2000 years old. I have never been trained in philosophy, so I don't really understand what this problem is, but I am very certain that consciousness is over 2000 years old. Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle lived around 400 BCE, prior to 2000 years ago; and even though I have been told that they did not have a word for consciousness, their society already had language, written language, art, math, commerce, law, science, and religion, so I am going to assume that they also possessed consciousness. After all, what else could be required to prove that one is at least as conscious as we are?

So the problem did not arrive with consciousness; it is something else. What happened 2000 years ago that could so affect our view of consciousness as to make it a problem? Well, there was that little matter of a new religion, where a lot of pagans got together and discovered the Jewish invisible God. These followers of Christ were somewhat zealous in their beliefs, as they attributed all that was invisible to their invisible God, which means that our souls were not really ours--they were kind of on loan--and consciousness, of course, is invisible. This appears to be the first dichotomy, which divided the intangible and the tangible and created a separation of man and consciousness. Prior to this division, even the Gods were physical, mental, and spiritual--there was no separation. It did not help matters when Augustine (400 CE) decided that faith was more important than learning, so learning was discouraged because the faithful needed only God. I will not say that Augustine ushered us into the Dark Ages, but the escort of this concept certainly helped us to keep in our seats.

The second dichotomy was the division of what was good from what was not bad--but "evil". At this point everything that was invisible or intangible belonged to God; everything that was acceptable to God and Church was "good"; everything else was "evil". These dichotomies enabled a zealous Church to spread it's "word" rather ruthlessly. Justification for the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the burning of "witches", and the decimation of tribal people was easy, because they were all "savages", who did not possess a "soul" bestowed by and belonging to God. The bad part of this thinking is the centuries of war and misery; the good part is that we are now united in the belief that there is really only one God, who has been known by different names.

The third dichotomy came with Aquinas (1200 CE) and his associates. This dichotomy divided what was mental from what was spiritual. Aquinas convinced the Church that math, science, and learning could be done for the glory of God. Learning was back! The Renaissance, Age of Enlightenment, and the return and glory of science was celebrated everywhere.

But what happened to consciousness? It got divvied up like a roasted hog at a barbeque--a piece for everybody. Religion retained ownership of the soul; grudgingly admitted that some intangible things are forces of nature; granted science the right to investigate the mind; dismissed the "evil" as supernatural paranormal mumbo-jumbo; and consciousness got lost. Many people wonder if it even exists, who/what created it, where it comes from, what it is, and is it ours? This is the result of the dichotomies. Although it has been long noted that humans are "physical, mental, and spiritual", we no longer believe that. We accept that we are physical, at least most of us do; and we accept the mental because it is unavoidable and was returned to us; but we think of the spiritual part of ourselves as belonging to religion. This is not so. We are spiritual beings with full possession of our emotions and feelings. When we fall in love, we do not say that we have found our mind mate, we say that we have found our soul mate--the person who shares our heart. Spirit is emotion, so why is it that when we try to understand God, we try to find God's mind? Why would we look for a mental aspect in spirit? It makes no sense. Of course, some of this thinking comes from anthropomorphism, but not all of it. We try to understand what God is mentally with our minds, and spiritually with religion. We still deny our spirituality--the dichotomy exists today.

Religions say that my soul either belongs to God or is part of God, and my mind is an extra that God gave me because he is benevolent and made me in His image. I know that this is not true, because evolution is real. Science says that my mind and consciousness comes from my brain, and that emotion and feeling are pretty much by-products of my mind/brain. This is not true either because evolution is real. In order to believe these theories, I would have to believe that other species have no thought, knowledge, feeling, or emotion; or I would have to believe that other species have minds and souls. Or possibly I could believe in magic and assume that when we evolved far enough "poof", we acquired minds and souls and consciousness. And, of course, the paranormal is still considered "evil" and viewed with suspicion, superstition, and contempt.

I do not see a problem with consciousness. What I see is a power struggle over the ownership of my consciousness. This is what is unresolvable. Consider that if I held out a box, and asked you to tell me who owned the contents of the box, could you do it? Or would you have to know what is in the box in order to answer my question? Consciousness is like the contents of that box, and I suspect that when we know all about it, the question of ownership will answer itself. I think that I am conscious, and that my consciousness is made up of my thoughts and knowledge (mental) and of my feelings and emotions (spiritual), so I find it very unlikely that anyone can take half of what consciousness is, study it, and learn the whole of consciousness. I also believe that the reason that the Ancient Greeks may not have had a word that denoted consciousness was because they didn't need one; they used the proper word for it--life.

As I look back over the last 2000 years, what I see is a lot of change and growth--always painful--which puts me in mind of a teenager's development, full of awkwardness, misery, and challenge. I see this time as a stage in human development; our first attempt to comprehend the intangible. I also see a lot of brilliant philosophers, who have given me a great gift, and that gift is the potential to know myself. They took an invisible intangible something and poked and prodded, and analyzed and studied, until they broke down that intangible into it's various aspects, so they could define the difference between natural forces and the mental and the spiritual aspects of consciousness. For the first time in our history, we have the opportunity to turn superstition and ignorance into knowledge and understanding.

Gee

[thedoc]

Gee,
I must disagree with your assumption that consciousness came into existance with Plato and others 2500 years age. I would think that human consciousness started when man became Homo Sapien and possibly with some of our predecessors. The act of labeling and recognizing a quality does not necessarily denote the moment when it came into existance. In human history there is a time when men started to bury the dead with articles that indicated that the dead person might need them in some kind of afterlife, or journey. This would indicate that man believed that there was more to a person than the physical body, there was a 'soul', or spirit, certainly some kind of consciousness.

The other point I wish to address is your assumption that it is either 'God or Evolution'. I know there is a lot in the popular belief among the masses, that these two concepts are mutually exclusive, but I do not accept this belief. And I know that there are pastors in my church and others who hold the same ideas but do not preach it from the pulpit. Simply put, God created the Universe, Earth, all l Living things including Man, and Evolution is how God did it.

[thedoc]

Intelligent discussion on any of the following topics, and probably a dozen more that I have forgotten to list, as they relate to consciousness, would be appreciated. If anyone has information on any of these subjects, please refer me to a thread or PM me or e-mail me with your thoughts. If you have an interest, please let me know what it is, and I will start a thread.

23. What are instincts? Intuition? Hunches? Motor reflex? What defines the difference?

Can all of these things be related to consciousness? Yes, I think so, and many of them interrelate. I listed them separately because that is how I find them in other people's posts, and I wanted to make sure that I covered areas that might not be understood as being related. Consciousness is a huge barely tapped subject. It is life, but what causes life? What is consciousness, really?

Gee

I am only going to discuss two of these for now, Instincts, and Motor Reflexes, the other two Hunches, and Intuition are a different topic. Instincts and Motor Reflexes are two of the mechanism by wich the body controles certain activities. There are others including voluntary motion. There are a number of involuntary activities including digestiion, heartbeat. There is one that is normally invountary but that can be consciously over-ridden and that is breathing. Instinctive behavior includes all the activity that is inborn, first of all suckleing by an infant, and crying, these do not need to be taught, the baby already knows how to do them, and they are activities in response to a stimulus, not automatic constant activities. There are others in this list including crawling and walking, sorry parents, but the baby already knows how to walk, it's just waiting for the strength and coordination to do it. Within voluntary motion there is an interesting area, most voluntary motion is consciously directed by the mind and the amount of direction varries. When first learning an activity every movement must be consciously directed and later 'Muscle Memory' beginnes to take over. In your top practicioners of an activity it is Muscle Memory that is controling the activity. A Foot Ball Quarterback is not thinking about his arm position ot how hard to throw, he is focused on the receiver and the direction and speed he is moving, Muscle Memory through much practice controles the actual throw. I heard some advice for public speakers, before electronics, that you should speak to a person at the back of the room and everyone will be able to hear you. When my grandaughter is on my lap I speak one way, when someone is 200 feet away I talk louder, but not by intention, it just happens. I also play Piano, and when I start an unfamiliar piece I need to pick out each note and put it together. After much practice I do not need to focus on each note, Muscle Memory is starting to take over. Later when I really can play the piece I put the music away and let Muscle Memory take over. The music, or thinking about it too much, just causes me to make mistakes. Right now there are two pieces that I play without music and several that are close, I do not play by 'ear' or sight read, I was never trained to do that.

[Gee]

Gee,
I must disagree with your assumption that consciousness came into existance with Plato and others 2500 years age.

You misunderstood my position. In the forum where I was studying when I wrote this post, there were people who had read some philosopher, who stated that the Ancient Greeks were not aware of consciousness because they did not have a word that translates to consciousness. Or that they were not aware of being aware, or conscious of their consciousness. I think that this is BS.

So the first paragraph in the post addresses evidence of, and defense of, the Ancient Greek's consciousness, but should not imply that consciousness started there. Are you familiar with the Lion Man Statue? (Wiki notes it) It is estimated to be almost 40,000 years old and thought to be an early example of anthropomorphism, so consciousness has been around for a very long time.

It is my thought that the reason the Ancients may not have had a word that denotes consciousness, is because they did not see consciousness as separate from life. Whatever is conscious is alive; whatever is alive is conscious. Understanding consciousness as something separate from matter came with the dichotomies, with the invisible God. Prior to this division, life and consciousness were considered to be the same thing.

I don't think that people fully appreciate how differently we see this issue now. Look back in early Christianity and you will find that even our thoughts were supposed to have been put in our heads by either God or the Devil. If it was God, you were good, or maybe a saint; but if the Devil, you were demon possessed or a witch. All things intangible were thought to be of God or of the Devil.

I think that the dichotomies are false, but also important divisions for learning. Consider that before this time all forces that are natural, all paranormal or psychic phenomenon, all the twists and turns that psychology now understands regarding our motivations and unguarded reactions, mental illnesses, oracles and premonitions, the spastic intervention of presumed gods, volcanoes and hot springs from Hades, earth quakes and tsunamis, imagination, dreams, and wishful thinking were all interchangeable and impossible to differentiate between. How could anyone say what caused what with any confidence at all?

Considering this certainly makes one appreciate men like Thales, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. But with all of this dividing, there was also a joining of our beliefs. Although I am not religious, I consider Jesus Christ as one of the greatest philosophers. He took the warring God of Abraham and ideas, that had to have come from the pagans, then mixed in an eastern flavor with his encouragement of selflessness and humility, to create a new spiritual understanding that now encompasses the earth. In short, he did more to prepare us for a whole-world concept than any other man, who has ever lived. We owe a great deal to these men and to many who came after them.

The other point I wish to address is your assumption that it is either 'God or Evolution'. Simply put, God created the Universe, Earth, all l Living things including Man, and Evolution is how God did it.

I agree. I said religion versus science, not God versus Evolution.

[thedoc]

Gee,
The other point I wish to address is your assumption that it is either 'God or Evolution'. Simply put, God created the Universe, Earth, all l Living things including Man, and Evolution is how God did it.

I agree. I said religion versus science, not God versus Evolution.

I believe our positions on consciesness are reasonably close, but I will let that rest for now.

As far as religion and science we need to be very careful, science is reasonably well defined and I think we can assume that we are talking about the same thing. However religion is not so well defined, due to the wide spectrum of beliefs, all the way from the fundamentalist to the athiest and almost any flavor in between. I will state that there are those who are religious that are ready to accept what science discovers without any conflict with their religion, and the way this is accomplished is to be very careful how you define your religious beliefs. If you understand and accept that most of what is taught as religious dogma, is in fact based on Mythology, there is no reason to cling to it as a literal fact. It can be seen as a poetic discription and the conflict goes away. In that sence there is no problem as religion teaches you how to relate to the world and science describes that world for you. O know there are many who want to take the Bible, Koran, or any other scripture as the factual literal truth, to some the world is supported by 4 elephants on the back of a turtle.

Did you hear about Bill Nye, giving a lecture on astronomy in the Bible belt, and when he stated that the moon shown by reflected light from the Sun, he was boo'ed off the stage. People were yelling that they believed the Bible, and that the Moon was it's own light.

Just a short word of explanation I take care of 2 of my grandchildren and the 3 year old girl likes to sit on my lap and watch 'Baby Signing Time' on the computer on YouTube. That plus feeding her and the older boy, plus driving them to where they sometimes need to be tends to wear me out so when I finally sit down to the computer I'm just a bit tired. Staring at the screen also tends to put me to sleep. Once I was checking one of my wifes mail boxes, getting rid of junk mail and with my finger over the delete button I nodded off. When I looked back up the mail box was empty. Lucky there was nothing important in it, it was an extra box. I make every effort to focus and concentrate on the posts I am reading, expecially yours, but there times when that is really difficult, especially if I didn't get a nap in the afternoon. Mornings are best, except when I need to get up early and go in to pick up the grandkids. I also like to set aside time for the piano, but if the grandaughter is here she likes to sit with me, or if she's taking a nap I don't want to be too loud. That leaves evenings and when I'm tired practice is not as good.

[thedoc]

Well Hello Gee, welcome to the forum. I guess that since you kicked your Hello thread off with a 5 page discussion it just got overlooked.

[thedoc]

Staring at the screen also tends to put me to sleep. Once I was checking one of my wifes mail boxes, getting rid of junk mail and with my finger over the delete button I nodded off. When I looked back up the mail box was empty. Lucky there was nothing important in it, it was an extra box.

Just how tenuous is our consciousness, that we can loose it so easily?

[thedoc]

How much is consciousness related to our awareness of the external world? There is a lot of psychology that demonstrates that people do not always see what is in front of them. If a person is only partly aware, or even so distracted as to be unaware of the outside world, how much is their consciousness diminished?

[Piltdownbrain]

Hi everyone Just thinking alot the last few decades, always thinking,,,,well, back to the contemplation!

[Piltdownbrain]

Nice rant Gee, your views basically agree with my own solipsistic interpretation of consciousness, it all seemed to take form with the word. It's ironic that I should quote from the bible, -- In the beginning was the word --and then introduce the post-modern field of semantics as a guide towards mathematically quantifying thoughts and emotions, with the instinctive desires all thrown in. Damn! That's a really complex mix of explosive ingredients, no wonder the modern world is always on the brink of an anthropocentric cataclysm.

[Gee]

Nice rant Gee, your views basically agree with my own solipsistic interpretation of consciousness, it all seemed to take form with the word. It's ironic that I should quote from the bible, -- In the beginning was the word --and then introduce the post-modern field of semantics as a guide towards mathematically quantifying thoughts and emotions, with the instinctive desires all thrown in. Damn! That's a really complex mix of explosive ingredients, no wonder the modern world is always on the brink of an anthropocentric cataclysm.

I never considered my views as solipsist, so your post made me want to go back and review what I had written. ????

As for the rest, you lost me.

Gee

[Piltdownbrain]

Nice rant Gee, your views basically agree with my own solipsistic interpretation of consciousness, it all seemed to take form with the word. It's ironic that I should quote from the bible, -- In the beginning was the word --and then introduce the post-modern field of semantics as a guide towards mathematically quantifying thoughts and emotions, with the instinctive desires all thrown in. Damn! That's a really complex mix of explosive ingredients, no wonder the modern world is always on the brink of an anthropocentric cataclysm.

I never considered my views as solipsist, so your post made me want to go back and review what I had written. ????

As for the rest, you lost me.

Gee

Touché ! In good humor I felt my first reply on this site should include a logical contradiction as a philosophical joke.