Zenny, are you OK?

You admit yourself in Holland people are puzzled. — Zenny

Benkei is famously from Norway. Well one of those hurdy flurdy countries anyway.

Not being racist is a lot easier. — Baden

Easier, yes. Easy, no.

Great stuff from Pfhorrest. Forum quality overall just shot up.

You're telling me that if your friends and family were targeted despite having no real involvement you'd shrug it off as David's rightful fury. Now I no longer think you're a racist you just have no loyalty to anyone. — BitconnectCarlos

That's interesting. For some, loyalty to friends and loved ones really does trump wider considerations, for others it doesn't. And some are conflicted, and reluctantly and ashamedly prioritise loved ones over doing what they feel is right.

Both of these books are Strawson's. Maybe Chalmers wrote in the latter book, as it contained many responses by philosophers. — Manuel

Oh, fair enough. They both must have written something by the same title. Chalmers wrote a (very good IMO) paper Consciousness and its Place in Nature.

I forgot to add, this version of his panpsychism comes from his two most cited works I believe, Realistic Monism and Consciousness and Its Place in Nature. — Manuel

The first is Galen Strawson, the second I think is Chalmers. Chalmers wasn't a panpsychist last time I looked, but he's open to it. I thought Strawson's panpsychism did assert that micro-scale systems like an atom or whatever do have experiences. But it's a while since I read Strawson on that.

THe building blocks are not 'a bit shaped'. They're shaped. They'd need to be othewise we'd have the emergence of shape, which would be an emergence every bit as radical as that of consciousness. — Bartricks

I accept the force of this intuition. I do think that everything is conscious, and I do not think that the concept of consciousness admits of degree. Shape might be another good example of a property that does not admit of degree, I'm not sure.

Your comment makes no sense. — Bartricks

Would you like me to explain it more fully?

If it is not emergent, then we can use it to model what Strawson is saying, yes? If it is emergent, then we can't and it would constitute a counterexample. Agree? — Bartricks

No serious panpsychist would ever assert that emergence in general is impossible. Of course all kind of properties are emergent, indeed the majority of them presumably. The problem is specifically with consciousness. And difficulties with the emergence of consciousness from severally and prior non-conscious entities and systems is one reason that people turn to panpsychism. This problem does not arise for the idealist of course, and I have some sympathy with that view. Some versions of idealism are also panpsychist. Sprigge was a panpsychist idealist.

Panpsychism and unconsciousness. I take it that I am sometimes unconscious. How's that possible on Strawson's view? — Bartricks

It's identity not consciousness that is lost.

A lot depends on whether Pfhorrest is posting or not.

QUESTION 1. Apart from political outlook, what is it that makes us accept or reject a conspiracy or conspiracy theory? — Apollodorus

One hopes, things like evidence, coherence, inference to the best explanation, cui bono considerations, etc.

QUESTION 2. How can conspiracy or “conspiracy theory” be discussed without participants falling into either of the extremes? Is this at all possible, or are we reaching a point of no return where the concept of dialogue and debate has lost all meaning? — Apollodorus

By following rational principles I guess. *shrug*

The trouble is alternative facts. When we can't agree on a body of evidence from which to draw conclusions, it's hard to see how people can be reconciled. It's really back to basics.

I do think it's important to consider conspiracy theories on a case by case basis, and avoid dismissing them on the basis of the political views of the person advocating for them (genetic fallacy). Sometimes involves a bit or work, other times it's easy. I'm not particularly good at it, my general knowledge is poor, so I lack good context from which to make a judgement.

EDIT: Apologies for the banality of this post.

There's a lot of bullshit here, but there always has been. There are also plenty of interesting threads. Why worry about those that don't have much to say or just bang the same old gongs. They give us a chance to feel all superior. I know for me they also give me an opportunity to argue against positions I think are wrong-headed while staying civil and respectful. I need work on that. I can avoid discussions of anti-natalism, free will, Israel, relativity denial, the effects of quantum entanglement on haddock catches in the Bay of Fundy, and anything else that annoys me. I can also start threads of my own.

I don't see much in the way of "evangelical nuts" here. And what you are calling "racist apologists" also include needed criticism of the social justice movement and other similar ideologies. Moderators are pretty quick to crack down on posters who go over what they consider the line to the point that reasonable argument is often shut down or never starts. — T Clark

Yes. I agree with this as well. I dunno. It is possible to ignore the bollocks. And sometimes it turns out not to be complete bollocks after all, and those moments are valuable. There used to be more evangelical nuts than now. We're getting the 'culture wars' coming up more now. It's interesting in a way. I like to meet people rather than caricatures, and this forum provides an opportunity to do that.

YYYYYYYYYYES. This entire post bears repeating (and can't be repeated enough as far as I'm concerned). — 180 Proof

Yeah. I think I agree with you. But I'm not sure. Social media is an echo-chamber. That's OK to an extent. But I also want to be exposed to not-me. So this forum serves that function pretty well. But then it's a philosophy forum, and I am the first to admit am an elitist snob and want to see proper philosophy done. I suppose what I'd like is to have the clever top tier of right wing capitalist pig dogs posting on here. But they don't care about philosophy, indeed they are anti-philosophy (philosophy is an inherently left wing liberal elitist activity), they are too busy ripping people off, not paying taxes and persuading savages to vote for them otherwise commies like Jeremy and Bernie will take over and outlaw tax havens.

You were serious? — Tom Storm

No! You were right the first time. I was just seeing how far I could troll Apollodorus. I was starting to think he might have been counter-trolling me. I had to turn against you and Banno to try and maintain the pretence. All over now. Or is it?

My understanding is it is supported by the Rockefeller Foundation under a subsidiary of the Fabianism and post-modern Marxist funny handshake collective. — Tom Storm

*shrug* You can mock all you want, it doesn't change the facts.

And how come there is no info on it anywhere? — Apollodorus

Someone did mention it but the thread got deleted. I'm guessing they're leaving this thread because Banno &co are mocking the idea that there is funding from left wing organisations, making it all seem silly. I don't know. EDIT: it would look suspicious if the mods deleted this thread now.

Also, I don't seem to find any info on where this forum is located or who exactly owns or controls it. — Apollodorus

I heard it receives some of its funding from the New Internationalist.

Jews have traditionally voted Labour - and so do Muslims. They are fighting for control of the party. — counterpunch

Is that an inference, or an observation, or something else?

And "black lives matter" is a part of "all lives matter".
There's some focus on that sub-set because some systemic discrimination has been seen in particular.
By refusing to say "black lives matter" and instead just keep saying "all lives matter" you haven't really said much, except to deny or ignore something that needs addressing.
Red herring? Ignoratio elenchi? — jorndoe

This is way better than Banno's effort.

If every new generation is a degeneration from the last, surely we should be extinct by now?

It's the worst philosophy forum apart from all the others. The old forum died but Jamalrob reanimated its remains.

This is a rare occasion when I can agree with Benkei, 180, Street and NOS in the same breath! Hurrah!

Your logic only applies to a single mind, such as God. — unenlightened

Yes, I think it likely jorndoe is talking about God. And on this I agree with him (Cuthbert's interesting aside about different usages of if..then.. notwithstanding.)

"If...then..." does not always operate as you might expect. "If p, then q" entails "if not-q, then not-p". But e.g. suppose if you want an eclaire (p), then you can eat one (q). However it does not follow that, if you don't want an eclaire (not-q), then you cannot eat one (not-p). — Cuthbert

I like this. :)

In other contexts your post would fit perfectly. And maybe it is welcome here as well, I don't know. I thought you would like to know what a philosophy forum is about so you can make informed decisions in the future about what you want to post in them.

This may all be very true and enlightening. However this thread is about language and concepts (which you have touched on) not about consciousness. Even if this thread were about consciousness, this is a philosophy forum and philosophy is characterised by argument, not authoritative wisdom. There is no argument in your post.

I'm a bit more optimistic than others. I think many philosophical problems have been solved, or at least progress has been made. It's just there is no widespread agreement about what.

For example, the problem of the place of consciousness in nature has been solved. Panpsychism is the correct answer, although questions remain. Or maybe I'm wrong, and functionalism is true. Either way, the problem has been solved.

Being a hairdryer would really suck...

All the more reason to go bother someone else. — NOS4A2

But what if you start running around infecting people?

This sounds to me like meddling. Surely it cannot be that difficult to leave someone alone. — NOS4A2

It's really hard, I think! What if you become a disease vector?

But, as you are aware, it's not the one I set out to discuss. It is not relevant to the question at hand. — T Clark

[rant] I do get a bit triggered when people don't respect the OP. Otherwise every thread becomes the same free for all for people's opinions on whatever they want to sound off about. A bit of discipline and focus would be really nice. Then each thread would have a proper subject. Banno knows better and is capable of staying on topic, but chooses not to. [/rant]

Then your point is obscure to me. Anyone else understand Banno?

OK, so for every sense of 'consciousness' (or at least the ones given in the Oxford online dictionary), you can tell to what degree x is conscious (from fully to not at all) by application of the first aid tests for assessing the 'level' of consciousness? Is that right?

Banno, do you think there are, as a matter of fact, distinct senses of 'consciousness'?

How'r the rock and tree getting on? — Banno

Pretty bad. Tree is responding to light, but not much else. You have to hit the rock pretty hard to get it to respond all at the moment.

All three are covered by the first aid test. — Banno

OK, thanks. I'm not sure that any of them are, not clearly anyway. Possibly how one reads and interprets these is influenced by prior philosophical views.

How’s the rock? And the tree? — Wayfarer

Neither of them seem to know who the current Prime Minister is. It's not looking good.

Which is the best definition of 'rat'? To betray someone to the authorities as in 'to rat someone out'? Or small rodent?

The word has at least two senses, and neither is wrong.

I could. — Amity

Shit or get off the pot.