[lutusp]

Oh, well, it sounded good at the time. :)

Were you objecting on the basis that the rock has some version of consciousness? The argument has been made and it's interesting, but I thought it was pretty far afield from the present topic.

[tekkanphan]

>The argument has been made and it's interesting, but I thought it was pretty far afield from the present topic.

Well your argument was right on Topic.Are you referring to any other topic.

>Were you objecting on the basis that the rock has some version of consciousness?

No i took it personally :)

[lutusp]

Whoah, very sorry -- it wasn't meant as any kind of criticism, solely that rocks aren't usually thought of as conscious entities.

It's just that one theory of consciousness is that we shouldn't be trying so hard to locate it in ourselves for the reason that all matter has consciousness. I emphasize that this idea has zero scientific support, it's just a philosophical speculation.

Again, no offense intended -- not at all.

[collyw]

There isn't a lot of scientific evidence for anything related to conciseness.

Science is based on observation, while we experience consciousness. And as the Buddhists, say you can't observe an experience.

[lutusp]

> There isn't a lot of scientific evidence for anything related to conciseness.

Or consciousness either. :)

But it's true, whichever spelling we use -- consciousness is a subjective, philosophical area with no real scientific substance, and it will probably remain that way.

[tekkanphan]

I was only joking. No offense is taken.