bert1

Indeed. That's the whole point. Consciousness doesn't arise from anything. It's there already. That's not at all clear to me. What do you take to be e...

Sure. But I do think there is a strong intuitive appeal for functionalism of some kind or another, and that should be taken seriously by any theoretic...

Yes It avoids the problem of explaining how consciousness is generated from non-conscious things. It introduces other problems, of course. Because the...

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 rel...

Oh sure. I don't disagree with that. However I do think it entails that consciousness does not admit of degree. 'Primitive immature consciousness' is ...

Then I think we may be talking at cross-purposes. I think to understand one another we would need to examine the concept of consciousness and set the ...

Do you think babies have experiences?

Nice easy quiz from Bartricks! No, not my consciousness, because I'm not an atom. I don't. No sir! Not me. Possibly, depending on definitions. Maybe, ...

I think I know what you mean, and if so, I think it is based on a confusion between consciousness and the content of consciousness. The content of con...

Tononi measures the quantity of integrated information. And then he goes on to suggest that consciousness just is integrated information. At best he h...

If you're saying that your consciousness depends on you, or that the consciousness of a brain depends on that brain, then I agree. But what justifies ...

There's no proof for any theory of consciousness afaik. It's more a process of figuring out the least problematic one.

These kind of strong statements interest me. What is it that makes you so confident of this? Is it that alterations in brain function alter what we ex...

Maybe I should use that word instead if it's clearer.

For that I suppose we'd need an identical body to be recreated, or at least functionally identical perhaps.

Yes, it's an important distinction to make I think. In a lot of conversations about consciousness, 'losing consciousness' when brain function is disru...

Not mine. On my view, identity is lost, not consciousness. So I no longer exist. But the functional unities that persist are conscious still, just as ...

The 'so' suggests an inference, but I can't see a valid one without adding something in. Is it that experience is a product of the brain?

They are not the only two options. Some panpsychists (like myself) might say that consciousness is a basic property of matter, like charge, spin or ma...

Yes, that's my general impression too. We need some kind of electoral reform to do away with fist past the post voting systems that always result in a...

Not sure, but I'm way more scared by corporations than by democratic governments, even shit barely democratic ones in which the democratic recourse is...

What's the difference between a materialist and a monist then?

Yeah. The argument in the OP is likely unsound (P1 is doubtful), but valid. I'm baffled by this simple mistake of 180's.

Wine on beer makes you feel queer.

Sorry I'm so stupid

OK, but that's still not part of the definition you gave.

You're not my real dad

You mean this? You were intending that as part of the definition? If so, that's not clear, and uniqueness is implied not explicit.

It contains no stipulation of uniqueness

Oh, but that's not right. I did read your OP. From this: You are clearly saying it is not just a matter of arbitrary stipulation that God need not be ...

Oh, OK. You think omnipresence is neither necessary nor sufficient for God, but the other onmis are both necessary and sufficient? Is that your positi...

You can choose whatever omnis you like for your definition, of course. You prefer benevolence to presence, I was just wondering why. Is benevolence si...

Don't put yourself down Bartricks. You can take humility too far.

How do you feel about omnipresence? Omni-gods are sometimes omnipresent, sometimes omnibenevolent, but curiously not often both in these kinds of disc...

Why can't this happen in the dark: But this can:

Yeah, it's just he's so sure about that.

Oh, what will he say? EDIT: Perhaps it's this one: "The same logic that leads to skepticism about objects existing independently of my mind can be app...

It's Banno's turn. He'll say realism is much better for explaining object permanence than idealism. Then I'll say the next bit.

I'm not so sure he is

Let's get it over with. Object permanence. Your turn.

Sure, but it changes its shape because of the particles in it moving around. Its ability to change shape depends on the fact that it is composed of ma...

You said earlier that minds are indivisible, not made of parts. But they can be in states that are different from one another. Typically, objects chan...

Frater domi dormit Pater non domi scribit et studet

It is more than that though.

Nay, I wasn't sufficiently clear. We do have to specify a reference point, but one of the entropic states will do as a reference. I guess the question...

No I'm not

Oh, no doubt. I have no idea. 180 was the one saying that future is more entropy and past is less entropy.

I never said nor implied there was an absolute reference point

So we have to specify a reference point, then, no? Without that there is no past or future as 6 is in the past of 7 but the future of 5. So we need to...

Entropy states from low to high: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Which ones are in the past and which ones are in the future?