Sam Harris On Defining Consciousness

[Rhondazvous]

Unfortunately, I've neither offered an argument, nor rested my non-argument on any such assumption.  I don't know whether or not the energy flowing through the light bulb is sentient, I don't think that we've been presented with adequate means to determine that, nor have I made any such claim..........along some ridiculous, well, the lightbulb energy aint sentient so neither is the brain energy.......wtf?  I was asking about the reverse......assuming the brain energy -is- sentient....what rules out the lightbulb energy? 3 and 4 doesn't rescue that..because it's the brain we observe responding to stimuli....and that's just an organ (which is a candidate for 5...lol), 1 is irrelevant in the case of the lightbulb - but amusingly it fits just as well, 2 is as true for the bulb as the brain (or anything).

As mentioned before, it seems -in your "theory"-  that some energy is sentient whilst other energy is not.  Tell me how to determine that?  That failure condition is really, really important right about now.  I need to know how to tell that it's the energy, specifically, and not something else or some combination, that's sentient, and how to distinguish between sentient and non-sentient energy.  I;m not trying to argue -against- your theory here, I'm trying to help make it more resistent to objection......after simply accepting sentient energy as a given.

Remember, the campfire isn't sentient, the light from the bulb, nor the bulb (both, ultimately, made of energy) aren't sentient. So energy doesn't simply, by virtue of being energy, satisfy your 1, 2 and 3 (or possible 4). Nor does the brain, by virtue of being an organ..also ultimately made of energy, get itself ruled out by 1, 2...or 3.

I gather you are using some specialized definition for the word "argument." Nevertheless, that doesn't change what you said. Such a denial is worthy of GC or even Drippy.