<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Dec 14, 2009, Gordon Swobe wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Verdana; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; ">that we're missing some important ingredient to explain consciousness</span></blockquote><br></div><div>No, we're missing some important ingredient to explain intelligence. Consciousness is easy to explain and that's the problem, absolutely any theory will do because there is no data they need to explain. One consciousness theory is as good as another. Intelligence theories are an entirely different matter, they are devilishly hard to come up with and there is a universe of data they need to explain.</div><div><br></div><div> John K Clark</div></body></html>