Probably.If those efforts bear fruit, isn't that going to change the parameters of the models Chalmers says could handle the "easy" parts? — Valentinus
There is a divine spark in all of us and I call that God. But it emerges from matter. — Gregory
He thought we had to think of him as conscious intellect, but also that we know nothing of His inner life. — Gregory
The divine part of our subconscious is dependent on matter but superior to it in a sense by way of emergence — Gregory
So no he is not an idealist or a materialist — Gregory
Mind is not experience and is given without experiences. — TheWillowOfDarkness
1. Why call it mind? I see no reason. Why not ping-pong? — Eugen
If intellect belongs to the divine nature, it cannot be in nature, as ours is generally thought to be, posterior to, or simultaneous with the things understood, inasmuch as God is prior to all things by reason of his causality (Prop. xvi., Coroll. i.). On the contrary, the truth and formal essence of things is as it is, because it exists by representation as such in the intellect of God. Wherefore the intellect of God, in so far as it is conceived to constitute God's essence, is, in reality, the cause of things, both of their essence and of their existence. This seems to have been recognized by those who have asserted, that God's intellect, God's will, and God's power, are one and the same.
The point is S denies the hard problem. If you think there is a hard problem, you disagree with Spinoza. — TheWillowOfDarkness
If you feel that Spinoza should have known of the "hard problem" then either you think he was wrong or you believe he thought God was conscious — Gregory
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.