On Apr 17, 1:49 pm, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 4/17/2012 10:44 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> > On Apr 17, 1:36 pm, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> On 4/17/2012 10:24 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> >> So you think you'll be just as conscious if your atoms are rearranged? LOL
> > You think you'll be just as conscious if I arrange you out of golf
> > balls instead of atoms?
> That's right - so long as their arrangement produced functional equivalence.
My point is that they could not produce functional equivalence.
Function is not dependent only on 'arrangement' but on what is being
> > What you are not considering is that just because the top level
> > consciousness would be lost doesn't automatically mean that sense and
> > motive on other levels would not be retained.
> Yeah, the sense level of atoms which you know about...how?
I am made of nothing but atoms, so everything that I know is grounded
in the sense of atoms. Either that or it appears as a metaphysical
entity out of nothingness when computational rituals are acted out
invisibly in the silent intangible void.
Given the choice between tracing the origin of awareness to evolving
substance and substantialized evolvingness in a vacuum it seems more
likely that they are both different aspects of the same thing rather
than one being a product of the other. If you could really have
Platonic awareness by itself, what would be the point of having such
relentless physical stability in the universe? If you could have
substance without awareness, why should awareness develop?
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
For more options, visit this group at