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 everything-list@googlegroups.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.

Reply via email to