Benjamin Virrion Posted 9 months ago John Searle: Our shared condition -- consciousness I agree that my argument is not a proof that stone has a consciousness. I mostly wanted to point out two things : 1) The belief that stone does not have a consciousness doesn't seem to be based on any evidence. 2) If we are considering the fact that we have no proof for it, believing that consciousness is limited to brains is actually more "bizarre" than a theory considering that everything can have a consciousness. Indeed, it would turn out to just allow a consciousness for humans and animals, which seems quite an outstanding coincidence, considering all the different possible arrangements you can find in the universe. I believe that there is a mistake in the example with graphite. Indeed, saying that something is made of pencil lead or diamond means that you are describing a macroscopic arrangement, and only making two categories : one being all the bonds are of one type, and the other being all of the bonds are of the other type. However, there is no description of all the "in between" possible arrangements (pure graphite or pure diamond actually do not exist in nature, because it would require the crystal to fill the hole universe). From the starting state to the end state, there is indeed a discontinuity in the properties of the material, but that is because there is a discontinuity between the "all lead" and the "all diamond". If you take the macroscopic properties of the material after each small step of changing only one bond, properties will evolve by small steps/continuously. In physics today, to my knowledge, only quantum physics (compared to classical and general relativity) is not continuous, where these kinds of discontinuous changes in properties are aloud. Even state transitions from solid/liquid/gaz, that are very abrupt, are in classical physics still continuous phenomena. But I would agree that my explanation also has its flaws, such as what do we consider to be the set of "all possible arrangements".