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 email@example.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.