> Hi,
>
> Dan Plante <danp@CS347838-A.gvcl1.bc.wave.home.com> writes:
> > Unless an entity has the three necessary prerequisites to form a
> > self-aware mind, even the term "meaning" won't have any meaning.
>
> Great post Dan. I have a couple of questions, however.
>
> One: what are the three prerequisites necessary to form a self-aware
> (conscious) mind? Can you refer me to a good source? (I intend to read
> Consciousness Explained yet this summer, is it good?)
>
> Two: in your opinion, can *science* answer the question "why"? (in the
> sense which you used in your last post) If not, why not, and what
> system-of-finding-answers do you recommend instead?
>
> > Whether or not objects should even be granted intentionality
> > /at all/, is decided by your own inherent intellectual, emotional,
> > and memetic makeup. I acknowledge that you and I can't do that,
> > but most people can.
>
> You and I can't grant objects intentionally? The first sentence here is a
> tautology, my question is: did you say the last sentence correctly?
>
> I usually have no problem assigning intentionally to objects around me...
> certainly my wrenches get up and walk away on a regular basis...
>
I don't mean to undermine the serious discussion going on here, but has anyone
thought about the way people act towards vending machines? We seem to assign
them intentionality: "F***ing thing, why won't you give me a pop?!?!" <kick>
> ERiC
-- Nathan Russell frussell@frontiernet.net
"I am confident that the Republicans will pick a nominee that will beat Bill Clinton" -Dan Quayle on the 2000 presidential election