> From: j.k. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On 06/02/2008 12:00 PM,, John G. Rose wrote: > > > > A rock is either conscious or not conscious. Is it less intellectually > sloppy to declare it not conscious? > > > > John > > > > A rock is either conscious or not conscious (if consciousness is a > boolean all-or-nothing phenomenon that does not admit of degrees). I > don't believe consciousness is an all-or-nothing, but it doesn't matter: > I still believe it is absolutely less intellectually sloppy to declare > it not conscious. >
For all practical purposes saying a rock is not conscious is good to go. We are not talking about etched circuitry rocks, rock-like life forms on other planets, whole planets which may be construed as conscious rocks, basically just say for example a 1kg sphere of granite. A computationalist view of the whole universe as a conscious entity, well rocks are part of it. Also a rock as a sensory receiver, reactor and environmental interactor is arguable especially when throwing in time compression... but I won't be the one to fight that battle trying to explain it. > Why do I believe this when I don't know it with absolute certainty? > Because there are strong reasons to believe that certain (functional) > prerequisites for consciousness are not satisfied by rocks, and there is > additionally no evidence that rocks *are* conscious. I'm surprised that > I would even have to state this on this forum (or that it would be > objected to anywhere, for that matter). > Some forums would vociferously object to someone saying that a rock is not conscious. That's why I said "consciousness" as a word is too umbrella. Somebody somewhere has broken it up and sub classified its constituent components. John ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
