[Serious] Thomism: Then & Now

[emjay]

For example, the form of Being (capital b) entails consciousness - but is consciousness itself a thing with definite borders or is it a range of interactions that can be graded on a scale with no clear distinction between a state of x and not x?  We all agree that people are conscious and computers are not (or plants, or fungus, or this or that animal..whatever).

Is this relevant to arguments for or beliefs in necessary, first, or ultimate.....beings?  It would seem that any argument which gets (or depends on) the form of being wrong would itself be fundamentally wrong from first principles.  Like vulcan, I'm not convinced by MN - but I think it's relevant and it posits questions which any realist conception needs to answer for.

Can I ponder that while I go for my nightly walk? As you know, it's hard for me to disengage