<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Oct 26, 2010, at 11:48 AM, Richard Loosemore wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Verdana; 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; font-size: medium; ">Based on no theory of consciousness that makes any sense, as far as I can see. Therefore just hot air.<br></span></blockquote><br></div><div>I don't base it on any theory of consciousness, but not because such things are hard to come by but because consciousness theories are far too easy to come by (but not theories of intelligence!) because there are no experimental facts they need to explain; they all work equally well even though they are contradictory, and thus they are all equally useless. Instead I base it on the theory that if science tells us that there is no difference between two things then there is no difference between two things.</div><div><br></div><div> John K Clark</div></body></html>