There is another physicalism discussion open on the thread right now. — T Clark
I would defined physicalism as : A exist if and only if A is a necesary variable of a measurement of the natural science as such the natural science couldn't explain the measurement without it. — Nzomigni
A exist if and only if A is a necesary variable of a measurement of the natural science as such the natural science couldn't explain the measurement without it. — Nzomigni
What is your physicalism arguing against? — Manuel
I think this may prove an interesting angle. What models of reality are in competition with your version of physicalism? Nature of consciousness? Subjective experience? — Tom Storm
My physicalism includes consciousness as is ordinarily understood in everyday living. I'm only saying that consciousness is physical, it is the fact of existence of which we are most confident, not that there's a particular problem with our experience of the world. — Manuel
If you think there is a fundamental difference between your body(brain, etc) and yourself, you won't probably be able to solve/dissolve theses questions. — Nzomigni
My argument is such that :
P1) Everything that there is to know about a information-processing system/physical object is how it works.
P2) Humans are a physical object/information-processing system.
C1) Everything that there is to know about a human is how it works.
The thing is if i know perfectly how i physically work, i also know what happen when i talk about consciousness. Therefore the problem falls quite flat. — Nzomigni
And this would be more of a eliminitavism of consciousness than a attempt to reduce it to the physical. — Nzomigni
Why you assume machines can't have self-awareness ?
— Nzomigni
They don't yet. — Tom Storm
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.