My vote, FWIW... where human infants acquire competence in pointing symbols (including samples) at things, so that a red thing is perceived as an example of red things. — bongo fury
Physicalism is not identical to eliminativism.
— Pfhorrest
No, but it is usually implied by it. — bongo fury
What panpsychism is about is when people ask "Okay that accounts for the behavior of people and their brains but where in any of this emergence of complex behaviors did phenomenal experience start happening and why?" — Pfhorrest
To repeat. My MAIN qualm is with people naively suggesting atoms are ‘conscious’ with the poor defense of ‘just a different kind of conscious’ - which is nonsensical. — I like sushi
↪Pfhorrest Eliminativism & emergentism are non-exclusionary — 180 Proof
Are you asking if your parents could have given you a different name, or are you asking if you had a different father but the same mother, would you still be you. — Harry Hindu
If bert1 were someone else, he wouldn't be bert1. That's why. — neonspectraltoast
If you're trying to suggest that all identities are identical aside from being in different locales inhabiting different bodies, you're sorely mistaken. — neonspectraltoast
You seem to know what you are - a bert1 - but are ignorant of why you are bert1? Is that not a question about causation? — Harry Hindu
You're all honestly confused about why you don't identify as other people...? — neonspectraltoast
Should qualia on that definition be regarded as consciousness? — Graeme M
When I'm talking about consciousness, I mean sense 1, and this is what I believe most panpsychists and people like Chalmers who go on about the hard problem mean. The focus of definition 1 is on the awareness, not what one is aware of. There is a list of categories of content, but only to indicate that is the kind of thing that one's awareness is often aware of.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: — dictionary.com
Aside from the fact its virtually impossible between exact circumstance, place, society, or genetics you literally went through the absolute same experience and thus have the same perspective, yours would be yours and theirs would be theirs. — Outlander
So my objection to panpsychism is that I think people are mistaking the descriptive capacity of appropriate systems for actual physical entities. — Graeme M
The asymmetry arises as soon as the banana becomes this banana. — SophistiCat
Rather, you are asking: why this banana is this banana. This means that this banana is somehow special, compared to the others, because it has the property of "this". — SophistiCat
What I am suggesting is that we are mistaken when we claim that consciousness exists because we are aware of it. — Graeme M
Human experience requires a functioning intact human brain. — prothero
That is why panpsychism seems so untenable - it's explaining some claimed quality of the world that doesn't seem to be there. I can't for the life of me see why anyone would want to say that a rock has some kind of awareness, at least not in the sense we typically mean. — Graeme M
I think saying things like "electrons are conscious" loses a great number of any audience that might be listening. — prothero
Why is it important for some people to apply these and similar words removed from a context of living beings? — jgill
Rocks as simple aggregates would not be expected to have any unified experience. I think calling a rock "conscious" is part of what makes "panpsychism" seem silly to a lot of people. Asserting the individual constiuents of rocks "quantum events" have some form of non-conscious proto-experience is an entirely different matter. — prothero
I think language is important and I try to avoid using terms like “consciousness” in ways that violate the common uses and understandings of the term. Language is imprecise and it is important to try to agree on definitions lest discussions become more disputes about usage of words than about ideas. — prothero
Basically if what we ‘experience’ - our ‘experiencing’ - is what we call consciousness, — I like sushi
But all of those still follow a nothing to something jump. A good example of the confusion might be the following. Dichromatic vision to Trichromatic vision is not a step up in the gradient of chromatics. It is dichromatic or not dichromatic, or trichromatic and not trichromatic. — Jonathan Hardy
Can we state that awareness is not self-awareness if we do not yet understand what awareness is? — Jonathan Hardy
I voted "no" because I don't think it appropriate to speak of "rights" that are unenforceable. or the violation of which is without recorse. — Ciceronianus the White