On Sunday, September 2, 2012 7:18:14 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Craig Weinberg 
> <whats...@gmail.com<javascript:>> 
> wrote: 
> > That implies that T-cells need a feeling to guide them not to kill 
> friendly 
> > cells. That H2O needs a feeling to guide it not to dissolve non-polar 
> > molecules. If you believe in functionalism, then all feeling is a 
> > metaphysical epiphenomenon. I think the opposite makes more sense - 
> > everything is feeling, function is the result of sense, not the other 
> way 
> > around. T-cells do feel. Molecules do feel. How could it be any other 
> way? 
> Panpsychism is not inconsistent with functionalism. David Chalmers is 
> a functionalist and panpsychist. 

True, but panpsychism isn't inconsistent with pre-functionalism either. To 
me it's pretty straightforward. It is easy to see the possibility of 
function as an experience in all cases, but it doesn't make sense to see 
experience as purely a function in any case. Of course subjectivity can be 
imagined as having a function after the fact, but if you start by imagining 
a universe without any possibility of subjectivity first, there is 
certainly no way that it could, should, or would be conjured from nowhere 
to accomplish something that could not be accomplished already, with more 
efficiency, by a Turing emulable mechanism.


> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to