<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div><br><br><br></div><div><br>On 15 Feb 2015, at 9:18 am, John Clark <<a href="mailto:johnkclark@gmail.com">johnkclark@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 Brent Allsop <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:brent.allsop@canonizer.com" target="_blank">brent.allsop@canonizer.com</a>></span> wrote:</div><div class="gmail_quote"><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">> Tomaz, William, and many others, it seems to me from what they say,
still don't understand what a redness quale is or is not.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You keep saying stuff like that but I would maintain that there is not a single member of this list who believes that redness and electromagnetic waves with a wavelength of 650 nm are the same thing. And they didn't need your paper to figure it out.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">> how can you prove
to everyone, qualitatively, experimentally, whether it is system
structure<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You can't. You can't prove anything about consciousness to a third party and so obsessing over it is a lot like video games, a complete waste of time.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><br><div>What you can prove is that IF a being is conscious THEN its functional equivalent would also be conscious. This implies that consciousness is a necessary side-effect of certain types of behaviour.</div></body></html>