From: Joe E. Dees (joedees@bellsouth.net)
Date: Sat Feb 12 2000 - 21:37:18 MST
Date sent: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 13:53:06 +1100
From: Damien Broderick <d.broderick@english.unimelb.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Phenomenology
To: extropians@extropy.com
Send reply to: extropians@extropy.com
> At 01:52 AM 12/02/00 -0600, Joe Dees wrote:
>
> >> >Self-[c]onsciousness
> >> >learns/constructs, utilizes and traverses these systems.
> >>
> >> And? So?
>
> >So it's interesting and perhaps useful to figure out things, and that
> >which seems at first blush to be central and fundamental (the
> >ontology of human consciousness) has a pretty good chance of
> >being significant. If it's correct, knowledge has been advanced; if
> >not, we close off an unprodictive alternative, which also can lead to
> >an advance in knowledge (of what's NOT true).
>
> Yes, that's the background to all and any of our discussions here (maybe
> even of the jokes). I was actually asking what you believe might be the
> specific implications of your (rather gnomic) addition to the standard
> phenomenological account you summarised at some length. (And which I take
> to be a term paper, or an extract from one?)
>
There is much more to the work (which was a presentation to a
Semiotics Society of America annual conference) than I excerpted;
most of my original work was not included in the phenomenology
background summary. There was also a preface (which set the
work up and contained some original work), a background section
on Piaget genetic epistemology, and a final section, which
contains most of my innovations.
> Damien
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:26:47 MST