Strawson enumerated his original argument. The one I initially saw had, like, 30 premises. I couldn't begin to reproduce that. I think he later produced a simpler argument. But I haven't been able to find it yet. I will continue looking.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Does Physicalism Entail Panpsychism?
- Thread starter atanu
- Start date
By definition 1, many computer circuits 'choose': they decide among possible ways to proceed. We know that planning and choosing happen in the frontal cortex of the human brain (although there are aspects that are more distributed).
What makes circuitry in the brain special is that we also have consciousness, so the choices can be conscious.
What is the evidence the leads to the conclusion that computer circuits have a preference for one possibility over the other?
And are circuits in computers the only other circuits besides brain circuits that choose by preference? If so, why is that? What makes computer and brain circuits special?
What makes circuitry in brains conscious but not circuitry in computers and other circuits conscious?
How do circuits in computers choose by preference of one possibility over another without being conscious of the available possibilities or of their own preference?
But that is the point. If brain and reactions therein were the source of "I am" consciousness, a body would be eternally saying "I am". It is obvious that the switch is somewhere else.
Actually it is "Even in case of abstract formal systems". What to talk of living intelligence? Even in case of abstract formal systems, there are propositions that cannot be determined this way or that way. What to say of living intelligence?
This happens with delusion/mistake only .. like in dream infinite non dual consciousness creates an "I" and a world. Same for the waking state. But to really know the non dual fundamental substance, one has to be that non dual substance.
If you claim that you will know the fundamental substance with operation of the brain, you are already not the fundamental substance -- you have created duality and you cannot know the substance as it is. You only create a theory, an idea, a representation -- and that is delusion.
Agree. That is the manifestation. What IS, before the interaction, IS the True. We think that the result of interaction is consciousness. result of interaction is known/seen by the consciousness.
Eastern teachers say that we create the world through interaction of fictitious beings imagined in non dual consciousness, like in dreams. But that I suppose is besides the point for this thread.
Last edited:
The 'I am' is from the *interactions*, the *processes*, not just the raw being. The point is that life isn't a noun, it is a verb. Same for consciousness. The physical body changes significantly after death: many of the basic chemical processes top and even reverse. simply adding oxygen again doesn't set things right *physically*. But if you *could* set things back physically, then you would have an alive and consciousn body again. In other words, life and consciousness supervene on the physical.
Well, Godels results are about first order formal systems. They don't apply to second order systems, for example. Once you get to talk about properties as separate entities, the Godel results no longer apply. Furthermore, they are limited in their applicability to very, very specific types of systems and life simply isn't even close to being that sort of system. Living things are NOT abstract formal systems of first order logic. Our thoughts often go to second order logic naturally. Once that happens, the Godel results don't work.
I don't see how that follows at all. Being made up of the 'substance' (a concept that I think is really too vague to be philosophically useful) doesn't say anything at all about the interaction between different examples of that substance or what information cn be stored in those interactions.
Approximations aren't the same as delusions.
The interaction is what defines the 'substance': how it can interact tells us what it is. There is no 'before the interaction' because time itself is defined via interaction.
OK, I guess I disagree with their opinion.
If life is a run, then whose run it is? If life is a run, what knows that run?
...
But I suppose it is futile to proceed in this thread anymore. The magical creation of consciousness through friction of inert material is a mere story, without any logical or empirical support. You can assert it again and again but can never demonstrate it.
For us, the awareness is. Verbs exist on account of the awareness.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Said the one that can't show any logical or empirical support for his own position nor demonstrate it to be true.
Oh the irony.
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
The pattern of neurons accesses consciousness. At death, the pattern loses its connection to the phenomenon of consciousness. So who is to say that consciousness totally dissipates into nothing and is gone forever vs. existing in an underlying and currently undetectable part of reality?
What is so special about the circuitry of the brain that the illusion called consciousness arises from it? Physical complexity only produces physical patterns that are only producing physicalities. Consciousness is abstract, and is its own entity, vs. being a phantom produced by physical processes.
Thats the assertion to test, entity vs. phantom illusion.
What is so special about the circuitry of the brain that the illusion called consciousness arises from it? Physical complexity only produces physical patterns that are only producing physicalities. Consciousness is abstract, and is its own entity, vs. being a phantom produced by physical processes.
Thats the assertion to test, entity vs. phantom illusion.
Does 'consciousness' require any empirical proof? With what you will prove that which proves all things? With what light you will illuminate light?
Did you write what you wrote with an intelligence generated mechanically by interaction of some inert moieties? How do you then know that your intelligence has competence to determine objective truths of propositions? How do you know that the mechanical processes have not pre-determined your responses?
OTOH, when the intelligence is unborn and inherent nature of our existence, we have the power to use it with freedom, since it is not controlled by anything else but our own whims and desires and ... wisdom. We are made of it.
Last edited:
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Feel free to keep beating that straw man some more.
...Where is the part of your post you are supposed to show some support for your position ? Which is what I was talking about.
All you have done is criticize some other position without supporting your own.