On Monday, October 15, 2012 12:14:55 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
> > Since we know that our consciousness
> You don't know diddly squat about "our consciousness", you only know about
> your consciousness; assuming of course that you are conscious, if not then
> you don't even know that.
If that were true, then you don't know diddly squat about what I know. You
can't have it both ways. Either it is possible that we know things or it is
not. You can't claim to be omniscient about my ignorance.
> > is exquisitely sensitive to particular masses of specific chemicals, yet
>> relatively tolerant of other kinds of chemical changes,
> And a computer is exquisitely sensitive to particular voltages and not
> sensitive at all to other voltages that don't make the threshold.
Let's see how computer fares under a giant junkyard magnet.
> > it suggests that we should strongly suspect that COMP is a fantasy.
> And so the computer strongly suspects that biological consciousness is a
Maybe the doorknob thinks that hands aren't alive too? Maybe you can talk
yourself into believing that sophistry, but I'm not buying it.
> John K Clark
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at