> "thinker" wrote:

>> "andy-k" wrote:

>>> Exactly *what* advantage does it confer and *how* does it confer them?

>>
>> Awareness of environment in order to flee, fight, fornicate, feast, etc.

>
> Don't give up hope of understanding:
>
> http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/OldArchive/bbs.block.html

> "andy-k" wrote:

>> Please, please, please justify your claim that consciousness
>> is causally reducible, else desist with this nonsense.

>
> Well, what an order! First, I won't claim that consciousness cannot be
> created only by neurophysiological tools. We don't know that and won't
> know that until we know what causes consciousness.

> All we can say now is that we know consciousness occurs in animals with
> brains and we aren't sure how far it extends down the ladder of neural
> complexity (are mosquitos conscious?).

> "andy-k" wrote in message
>
> news:ISx9j.21423$zw.5300@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
>
>
>
>
>

>> "thinker" wrote:

>>> "andy-k" wrote:

>>>> "thinker" wrote:

>>>>> First, I won't claim that consciousness cannot be created only by
>>>>> neurophysiological tools. We don't know that and won't know that
>>>>> until we know what causes consciousness.

>

>>>> The double negative is somewhat confusing, but there is an implicit
>>>> assumption here that "someday, we will know what causes consciousness",
>>>> and so an implicit assumption that consciousness is causally reducible.
>>>> This is a statement of faith, not reason. ...

> On Dec 17, 9:35 am, Art zilch.com> wrote:

>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:10:34 GMT, "thinker"
>>
>> unreal.edu> wrote:

>>>Agreed. But I'm dubious, without wishing to offend Art, that atoms are
>>>conscious. I think the best argument against this is that conscious
>>>states
>>>are experienced as unified states and its hard to see how bits of
>>>consciousness in atoms add up to this. It may turn out that the
>>>scientific
>>>experts on consciousness will be able to determine when something is
>>>conscious and when it is not, but we are nowhere near this.

>>
>> Hey, Thinker, it would be totally absurd for me to be offended by
>> people who don't agree with my views. Before the age of 40 or so,
>> I wouldn't have had any time for the metaphysical beliefs I now
>> hold. Basically, what happened is that I came across a description
>> of the "hidden" or underlying realities that struck a chord in me. ...

> On Dec 17, 9:35 am, Art zilch.com> wrote:
>
>
>

>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:10:34 GMT, "thinker"

>

>> unreal.edu> wrote:

>>>Agreed. But I'm dubious, without wishing to offend Art, that atoms are
>>>conscious. I think the best argument against this is that conscious states
>>>are experienced as unified states and its hard to see how bits of
>>>consciousness in atoms add up to this. It may turn out that the scientific
>>>experts on consciousness will be able to determine when something is
>>>conscious and when it is not, but we are nowhere near this.

>

>> Hey, Thinker, it would be totally absurd for me to be offended by
>> people who don't agree with my views. Before the age of 40 or so,
>> I wouldn't have had any time for the metaphysical beliefs I now
>> hold. Basically, what happened is that I came across a description
>> of the "hidden" or underlying realities that struck a chord in me. ...

> On Dec 17, 2:49 pm, pjmutn...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

>> On Dec 17, 9:35 am, Art zilch.com> wrote:

>

>>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:10:34 GMT, "thinker"

>

>>> unreal.edu> wrote:

>>>>Agreed. But I'm dubious, without wishing to offend Art, that atoms are
>>>>conscious. I think the best argument against this is that conscious states
>>>>are experienced as unified states and its hard to see how bits of
>>>>consciousness in atoms add up to this. It may turn out that the scientific
>>>>experts on consciousness will be able to determine when something is
>>>>conscious and when it is not, but we are nowhere near this.

>

>>> Hey, Thinker, it would be totally absurd for me to be offended by ...

> On Dec 17, 7:18 pm, Olrik gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>

>> On Dec 17, 2:49 pm, pjmutn...@sbcglobal.net wrote:

>

>>> On Dec 17, 9:35 am, Art zilch.com> wrote:

>

>>>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:10:34 GMT, "thinker"

>

>>>> unreal.edu> wrote:

>>>>>Agreed. But I'm dubious, without wishing to offend Art, that atoms are
>>>>>conscious. I think the best argument against this is that conscious states
>>>>>are experienced as unified states and its hard to see how bits of
>>>>>consciousness in atoms add up to this. It may turn out that the scientific
>>>>>experts on consciousness will be able to determine when something is
>>>>>conscious and when it is not, but we are nowhere near this.

>

>>>> Hey, Thinker, it would be totally absurd for me to be offended by ...

> On Dec 17, 10:41 pm, pjmutn...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

>> On Dec 17, 7:18 pm, Olrik gmail.com> wrote:

>

>>> On Dec 17, 2:49 pm, pjmutn...@sbcglobal.net wrote:

>

>>>> On Dec 17, 9:35 am, Art zilch.com> wrote:

>

>>>>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:10:34 GMT, "thinker"

>

>>>>> unreal.edu> wrote:

>>>>>>Agreed. But I'm dubious, without wishing to offend Art, that atoms are
>>>>>>conscious. I think the best argument against this is that conscious states
>>>>>>are experienced as unified states and its hard to see how bits of
>>>>>>consciousness in atoms add up to this. It may turn out that the scientific ...

> On Dec 17, 9:03 pm, Olrik gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>

>> On Dec 17, 10:41 pm, pjmutn...@sbcglobal.net wrote:

>

>>> On Dec 17, 7:18 pm, Olrik gmail.com> wrote:

>

>>>> On Dec 17, 2:49 pm, pjmutn...@sbcglobal.net wrote:

>

>>>>> On Dec 17, 9:35 am, Art zilch.com> wrote:

>

>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:10:34 GMT, "thinker"

>

>>>>>> unreal.edu> wrote:

>>>>>>>Agreed. But I'm dubious, without wishing to offend Art, that atoms are
>>>>>>>conscious. I think the best argument against this is that conscious states
>>>>>>>are experienced as unified states and its hard to see how bits of
>>>>>>>consciousness in atoms add up to this. It may turn out that the scientific ...

> On Dec 18, 12:07 am, pjmutn...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

>> On Dec 17, 9:03 pm, Olrik gmail.com> wrote:

>

>>> On Dec 17, 10:41 pm, pjmutn...@sbcglobal.net wrote:

>

>>>> On Dec 17, 7:18 pm, Olrik gmail.com> wrote:

>

>>>>> On Dec 17, 2:49 pm, pjmutn...@sbcglobal.net wrote:

>

>>>>>> On Dec 17, 9:35 am, Art zilch.com> wrote:

>

>>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:10:34 GMT, "thinker"

>

>>>>>>> unreal.edu> wrote: ...