[fc417fc802]

You can reduce the human auditory process to a similar mechanical list. At which specific point would you say a human is hearing?

You've fallen into the trap of human exceptionalism but you don't seem to be aware of that fact. Are you a substance dualist or not?

[qsera]

>You can reduce the human auditory process to a similar mechanical list.

You can't. Because we don't know at which point sound gets registered in consciousness.

[fc417fc802]

Because you can't even define what consciousness is, let alone objectively test for it.

You are entirely wrong though. You most certainly _can_ reduce the human auditory process to a (bio)mechanical list.

You have unilaterally, arbitrarily, and without justification added consciousness to that list.

[qsera]

>Because you can't even define what consciousness is, let alone objectively test for it.

Exactly. So if we understand "hearing" as something registered by consciousness, then implicitly things that are not conscious cannot "hear".

>reduce the human auditory process

Yes, human auditory process, yes. "Hearing" no. I see that you cleverly switched to the "auditory process" instead of "hearing". moving goal posts, are we?