On Feb 23, 9:28 pm, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
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.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at