On 02 Sep 2012, at 13:17, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com > 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.

To use this as argument, you have to convince us that David Chalmers is consistent.
I already provide evidence that he is not.
In case he is consistent, then, as a human being having a complexity close to you and me, you cannot prove consistently that he is consistent.
You are using an inconsistent argument per authority here.

Also, what is "pan" in panpsychism?

His physicalist computationalism is already inconsistent with its own functionalism. Like its dualist interpretation of Everett was inconsistent with Everett monistic motivation to abandon the collapse. Not sure he still defend that view though.



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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to