Depends on which part pf PoM.
Baars: A Cognitive Theory of Consciousness is the best scientific book on consciousness I've read albeit it's slightly old now.

Re Bennett and Hacker and their mereological fallacy, they say: — Terrapin Station

It's been a while since I read it but from what I recall the book was overtly behaviorist. It identifies psychological properties by their use.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k_P7Y0-wgos

you'll need good computer mechanics, so you need to improve your memory and focus, forethought and balance, instinct and judgement.

This is very helpful thank you!

high school science should be sufficient. I majored in philosophy and geology was the only college level science course I had. You will be fine.

Why not an appeal to attribute all functions to animals as a whole, as if specific organs/systems have no particular functions? — Terrapin Station

Why stop there? Is there a reason - a good reason - why we should subdivide the universe according to localised concentrations of matter (or according to any other standard)? What reason do we have not to consider the universe as a whole, not a collection of parts?

Exactly. So we'd no longer be able to peg any particular properties, any particular functions, to any particular part. Chemistry textbooks, for example, would have to read something like this:

"The empirical formula of the universe can be determined by its universal composition. Assuming 100g of the universe and calculating the number of moles of the universe, universe and universe . . . "

:rofl: :up: