On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 at 00:21, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 4:06:27 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 at 14:16, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Thus the rejection of panpsychism can be overcome by logical analysis, >>> historical and cultural reflection, and perhaps even by chemical ingestion. >>> >>> >>> https://highexistence.com/panpsychism-3-reasons-why-our-world-brimming-sentience/ >>> >>> via @PeterSjostedtH <https://twitter.com/PeterSjostedtH> >>> >>> >>> Not quite my panpsychic materialism, but chemistry is involved! >>> >>> Panpsychiam is not consistent with functionalism, whereby if you change >>> a part of the brain with a functional equivalent the subject notices no >>> difference. This is because panpsychism is fundamentally substrate >>> dependent. But there are good reasons for assuming that consciousness is >>> substrate independent. >>> >>> -- >> Stathis Papaioannou >> > > What are those? > It would lead to a decoupling of consciousness and behaviour or to partial zombies, entities which undergo gross changes in consciousness but neither change their behaviour nor recognise it. See this paper by David Chalmers: http://consc.net/papers/qualia.html -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAH%3D2ypX2dBmZZgVLLBnukfBbqHeuXBcv7OU4nDLK%3DAXZ62ibHA%40mail.gmail.com.
