> This conclusion requires an understanding of what endows something with consciousness Either you mean A) a "full" understanding or B) a partial understanding

> This conclusion requires an understanding of what endows something with consciousness Either you mean A) a "full" understanding or B) a partial understanding. If you mean A then I disagree. We can talk sensibly about markets even though we don't fully understand them. If you mean B, then I think we have it. I'll be the first to admit that it's pretty shoddy, but its not unusable. I love Dylan16807's point: > If a doorbell is conscious then we've made "conscious" into a useless term.