all physical objects are simply an arrangement of atoms/quarks, and the individuating of the object occurs when an individual perceives an arbitrary collection of these quantum objects as a distinct thing in and of itself. — finob
It appears fairly obvious that pictured here are an apple and an orange. But consider this: a term used to describe specifically an apple and an orange together – an applorange. This new conception may appear fairly ridiculous at first and you may say that it is indeed not and applorange because I’ve just made it up, but the creation of this concept in my mind is one just as arbitrary as any object inn any mind – in the same way that the object on the right to you is “obviously” an apple, the conception of these two things together can just as obviously be an applorange to me. — finob
The fact that my individuation of something as a distinct “thing” is completely arbitrary, means that the “presence” or “absence” of that thing is already a moot point: that “thing” as an individual concept does not exist outside of my perception to be present or absent in the first place. — finob
If someone believes in god because it makes him a better man, then the act of believing is justified, however the belief (that god exists) itself does not become true. In other words, reason alone is not the criteria for justifying the act of believing in something, however it is the only criteria for determing the truth of that belief. — StarsFromMemory
Merely pointing out that why someone believes something is not as important as what and how one believes (ie. enacts the belief). — Pantagruel
People's reasons for believing are ultimately their own business and their own responsibility. What you do with your beliefs is the measure of their merit. So if belief in a god makes someone a better person and benefits others, who is to argue with that? — Pantagruel
So, you can choose to believe that god exists because it explains a lot of the world for you. However, you cannot hope to establish god's existence based on those grounds (faith + pragmatic reason) unless there is some other valid reason. — StarsFromMemory
If we accept that nothing happens without a cause, then your birth most certainly did contain a purpose - it happened for a reason. — Antidote
If you were born without a purpose, then there was no cause for your birth, in which case, you shouldn't be here. — Antidote
One could say, because it is difficult find our purpose — Antidote
If you believe there is no purpose, then you wont look for one. This is sometimes called a "life spectator", refusing to start the race for fear of there being no point. However, the belief means there definitely wont be any point because you didn't look for it. Fortunately, rebirth gives us another opportunity to try again... and again... and again! — Antidote
Good point. Actually I find the opposite true. Considering the study of, say, both theoretical physics and cognitive science, the overwhelming evidence suggests a purpose behind conscious existence. — 3017amen
Indeed. People don't think for themselves and often reject the conclusions they deduce themselves if it does not match with the 'Smart People Worldview'.It's the extreme polarization, from both sides, that's dangerous. The extremist views have clouded the mind's of many smart people. — 3017amen
This suggests that animals are corrupt. Are they? (Wars happen when humans become corrupt and wars happen when the animal nature of humans reigns supreme.) — god must be atheist
There isn't a clear distinction between mentally flipping their perception and flipping their body movements to compensate for their flipped perception: — Pfhorrest
It “explains” why my socks and bubblegum are conscious, even though no one thought they were, but it doesn’t explain why the human brain is conscious the way the human brain is conscious, which is what we actually want to know. To put it mildly, panpsychism is irrelevant and pointless. — Zelebg
I'm only talking about response / reaction, any reaction, as opposed to contemplation / imagination. — Zelebg
I was not aware of those scientific findings, but as I started reading that PDF's description of them my immediate reaction was the same one that that author came to by the end: the conclusion that inverted qualia have been shown possible by those results hinges on a bunch of philosophical presuppositions. — Pfhorrest
so too on my account there would be slightly different phenomenal experience going on within the functionally different sub-components of the person with inverted color cone pigments, but the phenomenal experience of the whole person, who remains functionally the same on that whole-person level, would remain the same. — Pfhorrest
Experience is a synthetic virtual representation of the physical state of the body. This simulation processing takes time, so it is only natural that physical reaction comes first and mental re-imagination of it second. — Zelebg
I see, a tree is conscious even if all of its parts are already conscious on their own. So I am conscious and my brain is conscious, but so is my elbow and my nose, my eyelash, my pimple, my socks, and my bubblegum. How cute, and is there any actual reason, any reason at all, that makes you believe that? — Zelebg
That system is not completely functionally identical because its components have additional functions that the components of a real brain would not. Those differences in behavior (the things the homonculi do besides just emulating neurons) correlate with the differences in experiences that the system as a whole undergoes. The similar behaviors (of the system as a whole) would still bring with them correlatively similar experiences too. — Pfhorrest
The fact that is not impossible that a P-Zombie can exist — StarsFromMemory
so it would make no sense to talk about something that is functionally identical to a human except it has no phenomenal consciousness, a philosophical zombie, because everything has phenomenal consciousness (a first-person perspective) that depends on its function, so something functionally identical to a human has the first-person experience of a human. — Pfhorrest
There is nothing reasonable in what you are saying, so I'm asking you for the fifth time to explicitly name it. Leaf, branch, tree, forest.. what is conscious? — Zelebg
My reason for rejecting the possibility of philosophical zombies is my direct awareness of my own phenomenal consciousness plus anti-emergentism leading to my functionalist panpsychist conclusion whereby everything has some experience, and things with the same function have the same experience, so something functionally equivalent to a human would have the experience of a human. — Pfhorrest
What is a product of evolution that is not a product of natural selection? — Txastopher
As I've alluded to previously I certainly understand the psychological damage people have experienced...not to mention all those who've perished from religious wars throughout history... — 3017amen
99% of everything comes down to our ego, for better and worse. It is bad to have an exaggerated self worth, and also to get your sense of self worth from your conviction in unprovable beliefs like the EOG. Although I’m certainly guilty of this myself at times. — Pinprick
The advantage of illusionism over outright eliminativism is that it acknowledges we do very much seem to have these rich phenomenal experiences, leading to the concept of qualia. But our introspection is unreliable. Colors, sounds, feels, etc. are useful fictions consolidating an overwhelming amount of information and processing into something an organism can easily act upon. And this is why consciousness seems to be so hard to explain. — Marchesk
Good to know about this analogy. I had always thought of the subjectivity of experience, mostly of colour and that there was no way to deduce that my image of colour green is remotely similar to someone else's image of the colour green.Wittgenstein's beetle-in-the-box deserves a shout out here as well. — Marchesk
If so, the problem we face is delineating a set of behavioral criteria which can help us unambiguously identify the conscious from the non-conscious. What would such a criteria look like? Thinking? Not observable. Goal-directed behavior? Bacteria move towards light. Language in a broad sense? Bacteria use chemical signalling. I have a feeling that we will fail to identify a behavior or even a group of them that can help us determine the presence/absence of consciousness because every behavior humans are capable of has a parallel in non-human organisms and I'm going out on a limb here but even in bacteria. So, either we must conclude that all organisms are conscious or that no organism is conscious. — TheMadFool
If behavior is all we have access to and we do, continually, infer consciousness from it when it's other humans then what reasonable objection could be raised against inferring consciousness from the "behavior" of other organisms?
That said, consciousness may not be an all/nothing phenomenon but may come in degrees; bacterial consciousness may not be at the same level as human consciousness. — TheMadFool
On the first point, reflexively, you should be able to answer your own question. On the second, I was unaware that I had opined on birds self-consciousness. — Txastopher
I am unsure that consciousness can be anything but self-consciousness. — Txastopher