This is a response to Heaviside’s assertion regarding my conscientiousness project. I think it is reasonable to assume Cooijmans’ descriptions of genius and awareness for the purpose of this little diversion, as they are the basis for the previous discussion. That means these are assumed as prior reading.
A genius is a person who is more aware of the world, and is better able to verify that it exists. If he sees the tree fall in the forest, it has fallen. This awareness is perceived by others as creativity (distinct from associative horizon).
Conscientiousness is a necessary component of genius because without it there is no creativity. One may wonder whether a genius’ awareness may exist without its external counterpart, in which case we could imagine a genius who sees the tree fall and verifies it without lifting a finger or affecting a twinkle in the eye, or otherwise allowing an audience to somehow observe that he has seen the tree fall.
In the case of the imaginary lazy genius, it would be logically impossible for another genius to observe and verify the genius of the lazy genius. Therefore, the genius of the lazy man cannot be said to exist, and he forfeits the title. We can imagine that the lazy man may still be highly aware of the external world, but he cannot verify his own awareness because it is internal to him (and he has not externalized it through creativity). Because he cannot verify his own awareness, and no one else can either, it does not exist.
Aeoli Pera 
God sees the lazy man’s genius and will throw him a big party after he is dead.
>but he cannot verify his own awareness because it is internal to him
If we were animals this would be true.