On Feb 23, 4:00 pm, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> > He isn't saying it's special, he is asking why should we think that
> > consciousness arises as some exceptional phenomenon in the universe.
>
> Every phenomenon is exceptional.

Not in the sense that they are disconnected from all other processes
of the universe.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Why is such an 'arising' assumed?
>
> > > >and how we can assume that it isn't
> > > > universal in some sense if we can't point to what that might be.
>
> > > > > But it isn;t at all pbvious that
> > > > > "we don't understand consc" should imply panexperientialism rather
> > > > > than dualism or physicalism or a dozen other options. Almost
> > > > > all the philosophy of mind starts with "we don't understand consc"
>
> > > > That's not what he is saying. His point is that what we do understand
> > > > about physics makes it obvious that consc cannot be understood as some
> > > > special case that is disconnected from the rest of the universe.
>
> > > That isn't obvious, since there are plenty of physcialists about
> > > consc.
> > > around. And he didn;t mention physics.
>
> > He didn't mention physics but when he talks about 'disconnects' he is
> > referring to any theoretical discontinuity between consc and the
> > natural universe.
>
> Whatever. It might be better to take as your text the writings of a
> notable
> panpsychist (Whitehead, Strawson, Chalmers) as your text, rather than
> Random Internet
> Dude.
>

I was mainly posting the quotes. I was not expecting to have to defend
the casual Tumblr comments of Random Internet Dude. Not that they
aren't decent. I find them generally agreeable.

> > > > > >And don’t get me started
> > > > > > on the nonsense superstition of “emergent properties” — show me one
> > > > > > “emergent property” that is independent of the conscious observer
> > > > > > coming to the conclusion it is emergent.
>
> > > > > The problem with emergence is that is defined so many ways.
> > > > > For some values of "emergent", emergent properties are
> > > > > trivially demonstrable.
>
> > > > Demonstrable = compels the conclusion that it is emergent to a
> > > > conscious observer.
>
> > > Epistemologically dependent =/= ontologically dependent.
>
> > The ontology of emergence is epistemological.
>
> Says who?

What does emergence mean? It means it's something that *we* don't
expect to see based on *what we think that we know* about the
underlying causes and conditions of the emergence. Emergence has no
ontology, that's the point, it is not a chemical reaction that
transforms one thing or another, it is our perception alone that
compels us to consider it one thing rather than a microcosm of related
things. In 'reality' we are to see that there is no eye of the
hurricane, it's just an emergent property of the meteorology.

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to