I'm back. Or at least, I think I am.

Applying for scholarships again after a long break for reasons that I may or may not stick up here. In other words, real life and personal reasons. It has occurred to me that documentation of these events could be illuminating given that I'm semi-articulate and self absorbed enough to enjoy writing about personal drama. However, the fact that I was not even able to do that is an indication that I should think very carefully before going public.

I'm wading through old essays in an attempt to trace my developing interest in consciousness. It's a fascinating ride, and I've decided to put up a few snippets here, but before I do:

Important tip for part-timers - always, always look back over old essays. I have just realised that many of the positions I hold today are held for reasons that I have FORGOTTEN because I came into them years ago. So when I'm asked to justify them now I look like a complete eeejit, frantically grasping for memories I couldn't possibly be expected to retrieve in moments after a break of over ten years. Looking over these documents is like reading the journey of my arrival. It's so enlightening that I can't recommend it highly enough to people who have to complete their degrees at a snail's pace.

It's also an interesting example of extended mind :)

Sermon over.

There are so many references to it that I am vividly recalling my frustration at the word limit and how often I was picked up on a statement I did not have room to justify. Hopefully postgraduate study will allow me to justify to my heart's content, so wish me luck!

My frustration with the often tenebrous use of the terms consciousness and mind are evident in a 2000 tutorial assignment:

"How am I to answer a question about a Problem of Other Minds when I could not say for certain what features just one mind would possess?"

I was thinking about this ten years ago, and the question STILL bugs me today. This is a good, good sign :)

My frustration with the word limits, expressed in an essay:

"Since it is impossible in 2000 words to cover all philosophical theories of perception, I shall cover the central issues by using Fred Dretske's entry in my Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy as a guide..."

Actually this was complete crap. I had left this particular essay until the last minute and had to springboard 2000 words off a ~100 word dictionary entry - I was convinced I'd failed spectacularly. However, it seems that philosophy lecturers like it when you focus on one microscopic point and take it to pieces. Who knew?