On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Here, please try thinking of it this way. Substitute the word
> 'conscious' for the word 'expensive'.
> If I paid a lot of money for something, it is expensive to me. That is
> not debatable, it's the definition of expensive. If I see something
> that 'looks expensive', there is a fair chance that it would correlate
> with being expensive if I tried to buy it. But... If you are talking
> about a counterfeit Rolex, it may cost $25, but it is designed
> specifically to 'look expensive'. The fact that it might fool some
> people doesn't mean that the fake Rolex is expensive or that I paid
> $10,000 for it.

Yes, but the question is whether it LOOKS expensive.

> The thing to understand is that 'consciousness' is like 'expensive' -
> it's a subjective experience of significance that does not directly
> manifest mechanically in the physical character. It correlates to the
> physical character, but the quality itself is not describable in
> physical terms like density, mass, velocity, etc.

OK, that's what I am assuming. So it is possible to make something
that LOOKS as if it's conscious but is NOT in fact conscious. This
leads to the possibility of being unconscious in some important
aspect, such as perception, but not noticing that anything is wrong -
which you agree is absurd. Ergo, the assumption must be wrong.

Stathis Papaioannou

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to