The question for me is not whether "one knows what one is talking about" in the sense of "has the knowledge to speak wisely on the subject at hand." I assume that all people have enough knowledge to speak wisely about consciousness. What puzzles me is that many speakers ... perhaps most ... never use that knowledge when called upon to define consciousness, or describe their understanding of it.
Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2014 5:39 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] BBC News - Ant colony 'personalities' shaped by environment On 8/24/2014 1:30 PM, Eric Smith wrote: > The discussion of perpetual motion machines just provides an example > where the anal-retentive can dot the i's and cross the t's to verify > that it is indeed possible to make statements in which one does not > know what one is talking about. I'm torn: Nihilism or Constructor Theory? :-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zeT2npYf18 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
