It’s funny how panpsychists always want proof for a materialist view of consciousness when there’s zero for panpsychism — GLEN willows
Is that what convinces you so strongly? — bert1
Consciousness is a state. — Bartricks
It is simple Bert1, I experience my consciousness waking up every morning and fading out every night. — Raul
this thing that grows in my brain as we grow and stops as we die, tis thing that Tononi measures using his PHI methodology. — Raul
Consciousness is, let's say, analogical, it grows as you grow and it fades in a gradual way as we get old. — Raul
But the most important thing why you should not use word "state" for consciousness is that consciousness is not an "ON/OFF" thing while the word "state" suggest it. — Raul
Why can't a system integrate information (or whatever function you want to specify) without being conscious? — bert1
So, to be clear, you think your consciousness is the state of what - an atom? — Bartricks
You think you're an atom, do you? — Bartricks
And presumably you think that your body contains billions upon billions of other persons? — Bartricks
And that everything around you is teeming with billions of persons..? — Bartricks
And to be clear some more: you think the way to solve the problem of how consciousness - which is clearly not a property of matter - could be a property of matter, is to make all matter have it? — Bartricks
How does that work? — Bartricks
How does that explain anything? — Bartricks
You think if you multiply the problem enough times, it goes away? — Bartricks
I think it is based on a confusion between consciousness and the content of consciousness. — bert1
I agree with you that characterising consciousness as a 'state' is wrong, but not for the reason you give. The difference between experiencing something and experiencing nothing can only be a binary difference, no? There's no intermediate state between something and nothing, don't you think? — bert1
Of course they have experiences — Raul
I'm not saying they re not conscious but a primitive immature consciousness and so his experience is... very simplistic and immature. — Raul
It goes like this "dur...doing things to brain does things in mind....hit head, causes ow, ow is in mind. Therefore mind is brain. Neurscience. Sam Harris. Mind is brain. Dennett. Mind is brain. Take away bit of brain, person go dumb dumb. Therefore mind is brain." — Bartricks
So, to be clear, you think your consciousness is the state of what - an atom?
— Bartricks
No, not my consciousness, because I'm not an atom. — bert1
You think you're an atom, do you?
— Bartricks
I don't. No sir! Not me. — bert1
Possibly, depending on definitions. — bert1
And to be clear some more: you think the way to solve the problem of how consciousness - which is clearly not a property of matter - could be a property of matter, is to make all matter have it?
— Bartricks
It makes it easier, yes. — bert1
It avoids the problem of explaining why only some things are conscious and not others. — bert1
It goes like this "dur...doing things to brain does things in mind....hit head, causes ow, ow is in mind. Therefore mind is brain. Neurscience. Sam Harris. Mind is brain. Dennett. Mind is brain. Take away bit of brain, person go dumb dumb. Therefore mind is brain."
— Bartricks
While I wouldn't put this is quite such an annoying and dismissive way, I do agree with the substantive point, namely that too much is made of the relationship with brain function and what we experience. Not as much follows from this as people often immediately think. The close relationship between brain function in humans and what we experience is compatible with any theory of consciousness, even extreme forms of dualism. — bert1
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.