On 9/6/2019 10:54 PM, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:
On 9/6/2019 9:51 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
> I would put "Horganism" another way.
>
> Science tells stories/theories, and some are successful in their
> application. But we don't know if any of the stories are the final
> ones to be told, or even close to being final. (They probably are
> not.) There is no settled story of gravity yet, much less
> consciousness. One reads about a new story of gravity in science news
> every week, it seems.
>
> David Chalmers' conclusion is ...
>
> "I think that the Hegelian [dialectical] argument gives good reason to
> take both panpsychism and panprotopsychism very seriously. If we can
> find a reasonable solution to the combination problem for either, this
> view would immediately become the most promising solution to the
> mind–body problem. So the combination problem deserves serious and
> sustained attention."
> - http://consc.net/papers/panpsychism.pdf
<http://consc.net/papers/panpsychism.pdf>
The trouble with panpsychism is that it doesn't buy you anything.
There's still the question of why am I not conscious under anesthesia?
And do I really believe rocks are conscious?...no, we'll say they have
"proto-consciousness". But once you introduce a concept like
proto-consciousness, why attribute it to everything. Why not just say
nerves have proto-consciousness, when they are functional.
Brent
--
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/d2162191-cd56-1fb8-1bd8-ebe44590eaea%40verizon.net.
