> The argument is, if we use materialist definitions, then lots of unexpected things fit the definition. No, this doesn't follow, that's my point. This depends

> The argument is, if we use materialist definitions, then lots of unexpected things fit the definition. No, this doesn't follow, that's my point. This depends on further constraining materialist consciousness to have the specific kind of property I described. It's possible that consciousness is like "sorting algorithm", a specific property of a specific kind of system, and aggregates of such systems don't necessarily have that same property. They might, but it's too strong to say they definitely or probably do.