Any chance someone might précis for me/us dummies out here in maybe 3 sentences 
what Tim Maudlin's argument is? Nothing too heavy - just a quick refresher.

Jolly kind of you,

Kim Jones

On 12/12/2011, at 10:05 AM, Russell Standish wrote:

> Maudlin's argument relies on the absurdity the the presence or absence
> of inert parts bears on whether something is consious. 

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

Reply via email to