On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 14:50:02 GMT, Cereus-validus wrote:

Why don't you go back to contemplating your navel, Tiny Tim, take your New
Age drivel to some newsgroup more appropriate where they might take you
silliness seriously and not show everyone in this one just how flaky you
are?

If you took a poll here, the overwhelming majority would
say you and your twinkie friends lack any consciousness.

I would recommend you stay away from woodlands lest you be attacked by
squirrels. Those critters already know what you are!

"Tim Challenger" "timothy(dot)challenger(at)apk(dot)at" wrote in message
s.com...
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:12:46 +0100, Andy Hunt wrote:

Similarly, if you look for the _growth_ in a plant, you won't
find it . . .

I know what you mean, but as I said elsewhere, who decides what is
consciousness? And how? Boiling it down again you end up with "I think,
therefore I am" and that's all you can prove. Well, *YOU* can't prove it,
because you're just a figment of my imagination, but *I* can.

What is your personal definition of consciousness? Are viruses conscious?
Bacteria? Fungi? Algae? Apple-trees? Sponges? Jellyfish? Octopuses?
Fish?
Humans?
If some of these are conscious then why? And why not the others? That's
the
hard bit; trying to identify the boiled-down chemical processes which make
something self-aware. Or even to reach a consensus on what is actually
meant by consciousness.
--
Tim C.

What *are* you talking about? Me New Age? That's a laugh. What makes you
think that?

--
Tim C.