> the fact that
> intelligent behaviour is third person observable but consciousness is
> Stathis Papaioannou
OK. Let me get this straight. Scientist A stares at something, say X,
with consciousness. A sees X. Scientist A posits evidence of X from a
third person viewpoint. Scientist A confers with Scientist B. Scientist B
then goes and stares at X and agrees. Both of these people use
consciousness to come to this conclusion.
Explicit Conclusion : "Yep, theres an X!"
Yet there's no evidence of consciousness?.... that which literally enabled
the entire process? There is an assumption at work....
"CONTENTS OF CONSCIOUSNESS"
Are NOT identities.
When you 'stare' at anything at all you have evidence of consciousness.
It's what gives you the ability to 'stare' in the first place. It's
blaring at you from every facet of your being. Without consciousness you
would never have had anything to bring to a discussion in the first place.
Yes, when you stare at a brain you don't 'see' conciousness.... but holy
smoke you have evidence blaring by the act of seeing the brain at all!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at