On Feb 24, 7:52 am, 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.
That isn't what he means. The "disconnects" are about how there is nothing we can see that accounts for any empirical difference between matter which is part of a living organism and matter that isn't. There is no 'entity' at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. Of course. They are the particular sense of epistemology which 'seems like' the opposite of 'seems like'. Phenomena are reduced to their wireframe invariance - a skeleton which seems as if it 'simply is' because it represents the most common overlap and discards all nuanced underlap. Here, take a look at this. Trying to make it as simple and direct as I can: http://s33light.org/post/18174218821 http://s33light.org/post/18187162394 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.
