On 13 October 2014 10:41, Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> wrote:
> Le 12 oct. 2014 23:31, "LizR" <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > > On 12 October 2014 16:11, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Just like I have a problem with Bruno's theory because it imputes > consciousness to information processing like DNA, the "nothing but > information processing" theory needs to explain what is different about my > conscious information processing and the great majority of my information > processing which is subconscious. Is there "awareness" associated with > that subconscious information processing that is just not *my* awareness? > >> > > > > Exactly. I believe Mr Dennett has an explanation for this, along the > lines of awareness being "a user illusion, like a desktop". > > If there is a user... what's the point to call that an illusion? There > must be someone to deceive... It's so circular... > > Yes. I didn't say I agreed with DD, merely that that is one proposed explanation - I believe this is called "eliminativism" or something similar. If one is going to go for a "pure information processing" explanation then I imagine we're going to run into this sort of thing when trying to explain why some examples of information processing are conscious and some (apparently) aren't. As Brent says, this is more or less a mirror situation with panpsychism, where *all* processes are conscious (in some way) - the obverse is to say that nothing is really conscious (although some things "think they are"). Who is the master who makes the grass green? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
