If it is not emergent, then we can use it to model what Strawson is saying, yes? If it is emergent, then we can't and it would constitute a counterexample. Agree? — Bartricks

No serious panpsychist would ever assert that emergence in general is impossible. Of course all kind of properties are emergent, indeed the majority of them presumably. The problem is specifically with consciousness. And difficulties with the emergence of consciousness from severally and prior non-conscious entities and systems is one reason that people turn to panpsychism. This problem does not arise for the idealist of course, and I have some sympathy with that view. Some versions of idealism are also panpsychist. Sprigge was a panpsychist idealist.

Panpsychism and unconsciousness. I take it that I am sometimes unconscious. How's that possible on Strawson's view? — Bartricks

It's identity not consciousness that is lost.

A lot depends on whether Pfhorrest is posting or not.

QUESTION 1. Apart from political outlook, what is it that makes us accept or reject a conspiracy or conspiracy theory? — Apollodorus

One hopes, things like evidence, coherence, inference to the best explanation, cui bono considerations, etc.

QUESTION 2. How can conspiracy or “conspiracy theory” be discussed without participants falling into either of the extremes? Is this at all possible, or are we reaching a point of no return where the concept of dialogue and debate has lost all meaning? — Apollodorus

By following rational principles I guess. *shrug*

The trouble is alternative facts. When we can't agree on a body of evidence from which to draw conclusions, it's hard to see how people can be reconciled. It's really back to basics.

I do think it's important to consider conspiracy theories on a case by case basis, and avoid dismissing them on the basis of the political views of the person advocating for them (genetic fallacy). Sometimes involves a bit or work, other times it's easy. I'm not particularly good at it, my general knowledge is poor, so I lack good context from which to make a judgement.

EDIT: Apologies for the banality of this post.

There's a lot of bullshit here, but there always has been. There are also plenty of interesting threads. Why worry about those that don't have much to say or just bang the same old gongs. They give us a chance to feel all superior. I know for me they also give me an opportunity to argue against positions I think are wrong-headed while staying civil and respectful. I need work on that. I can avoid discussions of anti-natalism, free will, Israel, relativity denial, the effects of quantum entanglement on haddock catches in the Bay of Fundy, and anything else that annoys me. I can also start threads of my own.

I don't see much in the way of "evangelical nuts" here. And what you are calling "racist apologists" also include needed criticism of the social justice movement and other similar ideologies. Moderators are pretty quick to crack down on posters who go over what they consider the line to the point that reasonable argument is often shut down or never starts. — T Clark

Yes. I agree with this as well. I dunno. It is possible to ignore the bollocks. And sometimes it turns out not to be complete bollocks after all, and those moments are valuable. There used to be more evangelical nuts than now. We're getting the 'culture wars' coming up more now. It's interesting in a way. I like to meet people rather than caricatures, and this forum provides an opportunity to do that.

YYYYYYYYYYES. This entire post bears repeating (and can't be repeated enough as far as I'm concerned). — 180 Proof

Yeah. I think I agree with you. But I'm not sure. Social media is an echo-chamber. That's OK to an extent. But I also want to be exposed to not-me. So this forum serves that function pretty well. But then it's a philosophy forum, and I am the first to admit am an elitist snob and want to see proper philosophy done. I suppose what I'd like is to have the clever top tier of right wing capitalist pig dogs posting on here. But they don't care about philosophy, indeed they are anti-philosophy (philosophy is an inherently left wing liberal elitist activity), they are too busy ripping people off, not paying taxes and persuading savages to vote for them otherwise commies like Jeremy and Bernie will take over and outlaw tax havens.

You were serious? — Tom Storm

No! You were right the first time. I was just seeing how far I could troll Apollodorus. I was starting to think he might have been counter-trolling me. I had to turn against you and Banno to try and maintain the pretence. All over now. Or is it?

My understanding is it is supported by the Rockefeller Foundation under a subsidiary of the Fabianism and post-modern Marxist funny handshake collective. — Tom Storm

*shrug* You can mock all you want, it doesn't change the facts.

And how come there is no info on it anywhere? — Apollodorus

Someone did mention it but the thread got deleted. I'm guessing they're leaving this thread because Banno &co are mocking the idea that there is funding from left wing organisations, making it all seem silly. I don't know. EDIT: it would look suspicious if the mods deleted this thread now.

Also, I don't seem to find any info on where this forum is located or who exactly owns or controls it. — Apollodorus

I heard it receives some of its funding from the New Internationalist.

Jews have traditionally voted Labour - and so do Muslims. They are fighting for control of the party. — counterpunch

Is that an inference, or an observation, or something else?

And "black lives matter" is a part of "all lives matter".
There's some focus on that sub-set because some systemic discrimination has been seen in particular.
By refusing to say "black lives matter" and instead just keep saying "all lives matter" you haven't really said much, except to deny or ignore something that needs addressing.
Red herring? Ignoratio elenchi? — jorndoe

This is way better than Banno's effort.

If every new generation is a degeneration from the last, surely we should be extinct by now?

It's the worst philosophy forum apart from all the others. The old forum died but Jamalrob reanimated its remains.

This is a rare occasion when I can agree with Benkei, 180, Street and NOS in the same breath! Hurrah!

Your logic only applies to a single mind, such as God. — unenlightened

Yes, I think it likely jorndoe is talking about God. And on this I agree with him (Cuthbert's interesting aside about different usages of if..then.. notwithstanding.)

"If...then..." does not always operate as you might expect. "If p, then q" entails "if not-q, then not-p". But e.g. suppose if you want an eclaire (p), then you can eat one (q). However it does not follow that, if you don't want an eclaire (not-q), then you cannot eat one (not-p). — Cuthbert

I like this. :)

In other contexts your post would fit perfectly. And maybe it is welcome here as well, I don't know. I thought you would like to know what a philosophy forum is about so you can make informed decisions in the future about what you want to post in them.

This may all be very true and enlightening. However this thread is about language and concepts (which you have touched on) not about consciousness. Even if this thread were about consciousness, this is a philosophy forum and philosophy is characterised by argument, not authoritative wisdom. There is no argument in your post.

I'm a bit more optimistic than others. I think many philosophical problems have been solved, or at least progress has been made. It's just there is no widespread agreement about what.

For example, the problem of the place of consciousness in nature has been solved. Panpsychism is the correct answer, although questions remain. Or maybe I'm wrong, and functionalism is true. Either way, the problem has been solved.

Being a hairdryer would really suck...

All the more reason to go bother someone else. — NOS4A2

But what if you start running around infecting people?

This sounds to me like meddling. Surely it cannot be that difficult to leave someone alone. — NOS4A2

It's really hard, I think! What if you become a disease vector?

But, as you are aware, it's not the one I set out to discuss. It is not relevant to the question at hand. — T Clark

[rant] I do get a bit triggered when people don't respect the OP. Otherwise every thread becomes the same free for all for people's opinions on whatever they want to sound off about. A bit of discipline and focus would be really nice. Then each thread would have a proper subject. Banno knows better and is capable of staying on topic, but chooses not to. [/rant]

Then your point is obscure to me. Anyone else understand Banno?

OK, so for every sense of 'consciousness' (or at least the ones given in the Oxford online dictionary), you can tell to what degree x is conscious (from fully to not at all) by application of the first aid tests for assessing the 'level' of consciousness? Is that right?

Banno, do you think there are, as a matter of fact, distinct senses of 'consciousness'?

How'r the rock and tree getting on? — Banno

Pretty bad. Tree is responding to light, but not much else. You have to hit the rock pretty hard to get it to respond all at the moment.

All three are covered by the first aid test. — Banno

OK, thanks. I'm not sure that any of them are, not clearly anyway. Possibly how one reads and interprets these is influenced by prior philosophical views.

How’s the rock? And the tree? — Wayfarer

Neither of them seem to know who the current Prime Minister is. It's not looking good.

Which is the best definition of 'rat'? To betray someone to the authorities as in 'to rat someone out'? Or small rodent?

The word has at least two senses, and neither is wrong.

I could. — Amity

Shit or get off the pot.

OK, so please could you explain your point?

Think about it... — Amity

Ok, I just did. You seem to be suggesting that talk of consciousness outside of a this kind of medical sense makes no sense. So to wonder if, say, a tree or a rock is conscious is, by definition, meaningless. Is that right?

Very good OP.

I think the natural language use and philosophical (as in 'hard problem') use (if there is such a distinction) intersect in, for example, the following reasonably natural exchange between two people at the beach:

Jack: I wonder what it would be like to be a seagull?
Jill: Fantastic, I would imagine. The feeling of swooping through the air, the effortless traversing of long distances. Pecking people, nicking chips. I'd love it.
Jack: I dunno, it might not feel like how you imagine at all. We're very different from seagulls. It's like trying to imagine what it's like to be a snail, we're just too different.
Jill: Maybe, but even though I can't imagine what it is like to be a snail, I reckon there is still something it is like to be a snail, even though I'm not sure what. I think they have nerves don't they?
Jack: Sure. Not like rocks though, there's nothing it's like to be a rock. No nerves or even cells, so they couldn't possibly have experiences.
Jill: Agreed, there's nothing it's like to be a rock. Although some philosophers think there is according to my friend bert1.

They are discussing, I think completely intelligibly, about whether there is something it is like to be x.

Equivalently, to my mind, we can talk about the kinds of things that have experiences, and the kinds of things that don't.

Equivalently, to be aware of something is to be experiencing something, is to be conscious of something.

'Feeling' can be used equivalently, to feel x is to be conscious of x. Even to 'know' something could be used in this way, although that's less common.

'Sentient' can be used this way. To be sentient is just to be conscious, to be capable of experience.

There are other ways these words can be used, but I think all of this language can be used to talk about consciousness in the phenomenal sense. (I personally think it is important to make a distinction between consciousness and consciousness-of-something, as it is, for me, in principle possible to be conscious without being conscious of something, even if that never actually obtains).

Dictionaries typically identify this usage among other usages. Although interestingly, not all do! I think the Cambridge online dictionary misses it out. For example (I have bolded the phenomenal sense intended by the OP):

Dictionary.com
noun
1) the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.
2) the thoughts and feelings, collectively, of an individual or of an aggregate of people:
the moral consciousness of a nation.
3) full activity of the mind and senses, as in waking life:
to regain consciousness after fainting.
4) awareness of something for what it is; internal knowledge:
consciousness of wrongdoing.
5) concern, interest, or acute awareness:
class consciousness.
6) the mental activity of which a person is aware as contrasted with unconscious mental processes.

Banno only identifies one of these definitions (roughly no 3) and says it is 'the best' which is absurd. Dictionaries describe usage, it's a factual business not a normative one. Likewise this thread is concerned with facts of usage and meaning. People mean what they mean. Is Banno saying that people shouldn't use words in ways he doesn't like? That philosophers should stop talking about sense 1 completely? Or is he saying that sense 1 is really best thought of as sense 3? Or what?

What seems to be happening here is that some people have decided in advance that reincarnation is essential, rational and good, and that any criticism of the possibility should be suppressed by all available means. — Banno

However, supposing we accept reincarnation either as fact or as theoretical possibility, how would we convincingly justify it in philosophical terms? — Apollodorus

Certainly any criticism of the possibility of reincarnation should be suppressed in a thread which is only about philosophical justification of it.

Meddling or interfering. I feel I shouldn’t meddle in the lives of others. — NOS4A2

I'm just thinking that to meet your needs we'd have to clear an area for you, which you could farm or hunt and gather or whatever, so you could live unbothered by others and without bothering them. There's a decreasing number of spaces of dwindling size and resources, unfortunately. Perhaps colonising another planet would suit you.

Also brains and the ability to process non physicals would have been emergent at some point in history and evolved from simple to complex. — Mark Nyquist

Would it indeed? Hmph! If you manage to make the venn diagram no one is going to agree with it! Interesting idea though. It's making your philosophical views fairly clear in a way.

EDIT: one way to know you've made a good diagram is if people use it to clearly understand you view and start criticising your views, rather than focusing on the diagram.

You've set up the discussion nicely, but to be clear, is this thread intended to be about water, consciousness, emergence, or all of these?

I think the problem is pretty straightforwardly resolvable by adopting an meta ethical relativist view.

From God's point of view, there is no evil. Indeed there cannot be, because Xe (I'm woke now) is omnipotent.

From the point of view of a relatively impotent creature, like a human being, there are going to be loads of things that happen against their will. And that's just the definition of evil: x is evil if and only if it is against my will. "Good is that which is willed."

Adopting this view fixes the problem of the thread. Although many theists will want to keep the idea that some things exist that are against Xe's will. But I don't see how that is tenable.