🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec22.172901.27737@psych.toronto.edu> michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:
>In article <1992Dec21.002907.10911@cs.su.oz.au> danny@cs.su.oz.au (Danny) writes:
>>Well if it has no causal consequences why on earth would we want to believe
>>there is such a thing?
>>
>
>Well, *I* feel pain, see colours, hear sounds, etc.  I guess you're simply
>anesthetized...

But I have no problems with pain or hearing - pain certainly has causal 
consequences!  What I WOULD object to is a theory that postulated an
emotion called (say) "grindesse", which had no causal consequences at all -
ie there was by its nature no way of telling whether anyone was
experiencing it or not (it didn't affect their behaviour or speech in
any way).

This is the kind of status which Christopher is arguing that Searle wants 
to attribute to consciousness.

Danny.
--
*********************************
words, words, words, words,
I have no words
To describe the vanity of life,
The insane inanity of life,
I have no words but ha!
*********************************