On 1/12/2014 9:42 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
I'm sorry I repeat this answer so many times, but this claim is also
made so many times. The main problem I see with this idea is that no
progress has been made so far in explaining how a lump of matter
becomes conscious, as opposed to just being a zombie mechanically
performing complex behaviors. Insisting that such an explanation must
exist instead of entertaining other models of reality strikes me as a
form of mysticism.
Well we know that one lump of matter is conscious and we think some others that are
structually similar are and that some others are not. A plausible hypothesis is that the
consciousness is a consequence of the structure. Alternative hypotheses would have to
explain this coincidence.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.