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.
Brent -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
