On Feb 23, 9:28 pm, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > On Feb 23, 4:00 pm, 1Z <[email protected]> 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.
The so called disconnect just amounts to some entities being conscious and others not. But every entity has properties that some other entities don't. > > > > 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. $0.02 + $0.02 = $0.04 > > > > > > >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. Fine. Then reduction and deteminism are epistemological too. > 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 [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
