REPLY PART 1

And ‘Howdy’ to you too Nate, no, that’s not right. Let me try that again…

G’Day Nate! (much better!)

I’m glad you liked the postcard I sent for Bobby, it matters not that he didn’t need it after all  I love the many varied perceptions that come to light when we humans communicate with each other. You just never can tell how the next person sees what may seem so simple to us. I had a brief look at the Wikipedia article about Dennett’s – Consciousness Explained to see what you were reading without reading the whole book. I think one of my favorite things about studying has been being taught something then told but wait! There’s a whole other school of thought that rejects that so we in effect have to make it up as we go. In that vein I would like to offer you what critics have said about Dennetts work just to throw a spanner in the works… this is copied from the one & only Wikipedia (where all the knowledge of the world is kept ha-ha).

Critics of Dennett's approach, such as David Chalmers and Thomas Nagel, argue that Dennett's argument misses the point of the inquiry by merely redefining consciousness as an external property and ignoring the subjective aspect completely. This has led detractors to nickname the book Consciousness Ignored and Consciousness Explained Away.[7][8] Dennett and his eliminative materialist supporters, however, respond that the aforementioned "subjective aspect" of conscious minds is nonexistent, an unscientific remnant of commonsense "folk psychology," and that his alleged redefinition is the only coherent description of consciousness.

However, John Searle argues[9] that Dennett, who insists that discussing subjectivity is nonsense because it is unscientific and science presupposes objectivity, is making a category error. Searle argues that the goal of science is to establish and validate statements which are epistemically objective, (i.e., whose truth can be discovered and evaluated by any interested party), but are not necessarily ontologically objective. Searle calls any value judgment epistemically subjective. Thus, "McKinley is prettier than Everest" is epistemically subjective, whereas "McKinley is higher than Everest" is epistemically objective. In other words, the latter statement is evaluable (in fact, falsifiable) by an understood ('background') criterion for mountain height, like 'the summit is so many meters above sea level'. No such criteria exist for prettiness. Searle says that in Dennett's view, there is no consciousness in addition to the computational features, because that is all that consciousness amounts to for him: mere effects of a von Neumann(esque) virtual machine implemented in a parallel architecture and therefore implies that conscious states are illusory, but Searle points out: "where consciousness is concerned, the existence of the appearance is the reality."

REPLY PART 2

The roos on the postcard I sent actually look quite small in comparison to the Big Red Kangaroo. Maybe they were Eastern Grays which are most common where I live here on the Northern East Coast. I’d show you one here but Benjamin is still working on that concept for us ;) I’m sure you’ve probably seen the American movie Kangaroo Jack anyway.

I’m not sure whether I’ve told you previously but I’m a psych student so I follow along with some of the things you talk about in your blogs. I’ve been a little disappointed with the degree actually & in reflection I think it has been very ‘generic’ where we’ve covered many aspects in passing but nothing in depth so I’m almost at the end and feel like I know nothing (maybe it’s all those alternative schools of thought that are to blame) but I guess that's what post-graduate studies are for. Personality was actually one of my favorite areas also but that class was only offered in an intensive mode so classes were only for a week, 9-5 then assessments soon after so it’s an area I’d like to devote more time to in the future. I’ve sold a lot of my textbooks since (to fund my children’s birthday parties ha-ha) but the personality text I have kept because I want to read through it again when I get the time. The text we used was McAdams, The Person, An introduction to the science of personality psychology. He’s an American authority on the subject so perhaps we’ve even used the same resources.

I’d like to dissect your statement “I may disappoint you on the depth of character deal” That could be looked at that from many perspectives & I’m someone who naturally looks for the good in people so I would probably see you differently to how you view yourself. I guess though, in a public forum, I’ll leave it alone entirely ;)

You asked how many times I’ve been left hanging by a lame mate. Well not that often thankfully. I tend to surround myself with only a few genuine people, rather than having a lot of friends. My network consists of just those that I would do anything for & know they will (& have done) the same for me in return & the rest I keep as acquaintances. I keep my life less complicated that way I think. I have a different view of people though, (and that probably has a lot to do with our respective environments of course), but I like to think there is good in everyone and that is where I place my focus. I think there is enough darkness in the world & we should all be more kind to one another. I realize that’s a fairly idealistic way to think (and even ‘dangerous’ where you reside), but I’ve found personally, that when you show kindness, you get kindness and appreciation in return & that’s what I feed off.

RESPONSE - PART 3

It saddens me that you don’t have this option in your environment, because reading so many of the blogs on this site, it seems to be what so many prisoners crave in their quiet time yet you all have your feathers fluffed up & constantly have your fight or flight instincts on alert which makes it an obviously volatile place at all times, when each and every one of you seem to crave the reverse.

To answer your question, I’ve been both an outback and a city girl. I was actually born in New Zealand, immigrated with my family to Australia when I was a child. I’ve lived in the west in little country towns and in cities. Where I am now is a nice mixture of the 2, you could look at it as a small city or a large country town. It’s very laid back & a good place to raise children. I think I would say I’m a country girl at heart though.

Your reply is very interactive. You’ve had me going here, there & everywhere which is entertaining. I’ve read your post #77 & I can’t fathom how a ‘justice system’ allows shit like this to happen. I heard Bryan Stevenson (of the Equal Justice Initiative) say in a recent interview that “you’re better off to be rich and guilty in the United States, than poor and innocent” such a statement makes me so angry & the USA is supposed to be the “world’s superpower” , leading the way - but it appears simply broken, in SO many ways. Your post raises so many questions but the one that is troubling me the most… actually that’s not true… the whole thing is troubling me… but can I ask HOW is a jury chosen in the US? Sean was talking about how there were jury members that weren’t serving in his best interests. What happens here in Australia is that each side, both the prosecutor and defense are able to challenge a jury member & if they do, that member doesn’t serve on the jury. The whole point of a jury is to be an impartial group of your peers. Also, SURELY the evidence about his ex-wife and her computer antics should have been able to be used as testament to her character. I feel deeply for his children. This is a reminder to me also about the enormous 'power of words' and why I choose to use only kind words.

Anyway. Thank you for your reply & I’m sure we’ll speak again.

Take care, Nicki

(scanned reply – view as blog post)