Clarendon

Sorry, I appreciate you taking the time to try and explain it to me, but I do not see how it is relevant to the case I am making. As I see it, to supp...

I have been assuming throughout that consciousness is a state, not an object. Minds 'have' consciousness, but they are not made of it. It's a state of...

Hi, I'm not sure of the motivation for that view. Conscious states are states and states are of things. I'm taking that for granted. I see no problem ...

Dictionary definition fallacy. Look it up. Oh, and I won't be responding to you again btw. You are on the 'not worth it' list.

You do realize YOU are the one Humpty dumptying? Despite my having said what I mean by weak emergence numerous times you have decided that you can jus...

This just ignores what I explicitly said I mean by weak emergence. I am using it to mean: something had by the whole, but not by any of the parts. If ...

Good will account: overdrawn.

And for those interested in my actual argument, weak emergence is where the whole has a feature not found in the parts but that is not of a different ...

That really makes no sense at all. I'm afraid your good will account is empty now too. Have a lovely day.

No, I'm afraid you used up whatever store of good will I may have had for you. Sorry about that.

You are simply restating Chalmers’s explanatory gap and treating it as if it were the problem I am raising. It simply isn't. I am not arguing that con...

Oscar Wilde has nothing to fear

Life is only getting shorter. You haven't grasped the point never mind addressed it. So really this isn't worth continuing.

Further demonstration that you haven't grasped the point. Life's too short for our exchange to continue.

You're giving a historical diagnosis, not raising an objection or highlighting some flaw in the reasoning. The historical diagnosis is incorrect. Cons...

Again: call it what you want. You're getting out what was not put in. End of story. If there's no rabbit in the hat, you can't get one out. that's tru...

Clearly you haven't as you persist in thinking further information about the arrangement of the brain will supply an answer. Until you can see why thi...

It was. Call it whatever you want, the point does not alter. Unless a new kind of property is already in the base, no amount of complexity - or whatev...

That’s an ad hominem. The argument does not depend on ignorance of neuroscience. It depends on a principle of reason: reorganisation cannot create a n...

Complexity does not create new kinds of property. It only reorganises existing ones. Until you explain how phenomenality appears from a base that lack...

That is a paradigm example of weak emergence.

bigger sigh. Okay then - again

Anderson’s “new properties” are not new kinds of property. They are new patterns of behaviour grounded in microphysical structure and laws. That is we...

You understand that my point is not Chalmers' point? And you understand that where the impossibiilty of strong emergence is concerned, all Chalmers do...

You are describing exactly what I have already granted: weak emergence. Voice, gait, accent, vocabulary, chess moves - they're all patterns of behavio...

You are clearly assuming that any hard problem of consciousness just is the one Chalmers is talking about. It is not. This is the 'hard problem' falla...

First, physicalism does claim that everything that exists is ultimately physical, in the sense that all facts supervene on physical facts. Denying tha...

Have you thought about working that up into an article?

This isn't worthwhile. You don't seem to understand either Chalmers or me. I haven't denied that consciousness can be a fundamental property of matter...

No, you're conflating two different points. the quote you gave does not state my principle. It states the familiar explanatory point that functional a...

Which quote - this one? "Even when we have explained the performance of every cognitive and behavioral function in the vicinity of experience, the que...

I don’t think Chalmers really recognises the force of the problem I am highlighting. He never explicitly states it, after all. I mean, he is certainly...

I think he's certainly aware of this proper hard problem of consciousness. But he has no solution to it. His response is to posit fundamental psychoph...

Chalmers’s “hard problem” concerns explanation: we can explain what a system does without mentioning consciousness. That is not the problem I am raisi...

I can only speak for myself, but I don't think you've understood the view. It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether scientists can study conscious...

It doesn't rule out weak emergence as I have pointed out numerous times now. Weak emergence is fine. Strong emergence is magic. Weak emergence in no w...

Energy is not an absence of mass relevant properties. It has mass energy equivalence by law. That is exactly why E = mc2 is true! So your example was ...

We know enough about consciousness to know that it is a state quite unlike size or shape. We know that it is a subjective state, that there is somethi...

Yes, the truth of logic that it is invalid to have in your conclusion something not contained in the premises is just a special instance of the genera...

If energy truly had no mass-relevant properties, then E = mc2 would be false. So your example presupposes the very principle you think it refutes.

I don't think it's arbitrary at all. Consciousness picks out a clear phenomenon: there being something it is like for a subject. Pain, visual experien...

But then you're getting consciousness out without putting it in.

But if a thing has qualia, then it has consciousness. So I'm not seeing how you're not simply attributing consciousness to the base materials.

On the other hand, if the point was - and it seems it wasn't, but as I have a reply anyway, I might as well post it! - that so long as we have states ...

But an object can't have qualia without being conscious, so it sounds as if you're attributing consciousness to the base materials.

To check if I am following, is your point that atoms have states of some sort and as consciousness is a state then there is nothing incoherent in the ...

It's clearly not patently false - it's patently true! There is no example of a feature strongly emerging. If you know of one, say. Strong emergence is...

If I have understood you correctly, you are saying that atoms are conscious? That seems to be the only option available to the physicalist if they are...

I haven't argued that consciousness requires strong emergence. I've argued that strong emergence is just fancy for magic and that it violates a truth ...

Right. And by the same reasoning, a magician has demonstrated that rabbits can come from nothing. You must be very impressed at magic shows - presumab...