bert1

Descartes wasn't an idealist as far as I'm aware. Idealism is monistic so the interaction problem does not arise.

Please could you tell us about it

Definitely

It is, and the answer, I think, is 'yes' if we include the assumption of omnipotence in the concept of perfection. It still only follows that what is ...

Oh, fair enough. In that case I agree with you.

I agree with you, but haven't you previously resisted a reduction of what ought to be the case to what one wants to be the case?

The fact that you are asking this question means you'll be fine I would think. Totally perfect posts aren't possible or necessary. Only Donald Trump i...

I've been involved in the set up of a couple of democratically constituted organisations, and there is always an awkward bit at the start, as sort of ...

Thanks, that's interesting and food for thought. Bit short on time at the moment so may leave it there.

The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy is an amazing resource. It goes in depth.

An example might help.

Maybe ages ago before 'life' got redefined in functional terms.

Or maybe predictive model-formation does not really admit of rational analysis. If it has evolved it has done so without philosophy and intellectual r...

Abduction includes elements of induction and deduction, no? The issue still remains. Also consider Goodman's new riddle because it's fun. Lets say we ...

Just that on that view matter always obeys laws. Oh, OK. That weakens their claim to be real, perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe they are real, but not in th...

Can you think of a test that would detect sapience or consciousness?

i don't follow. Test them for what? What would that show?

I applaud the OP for its clarity. In this section there is the usual definitional conflation that functionalism seems to rely on (in my view). There a...

I feel a bit bad now. I was remembering conversations on the philosophy of mind. Your awareness of academic philosophy is valuable and noticed.

Sure, that is a possibility. But it raises a lot of questions about the details of this objective, but invisible and all-powerful, existence that laws...

Sorry, missed this. Because laws are descriptive and don't really explain anything. Intention is explanatory. Although this might still be vulnerable ...

While @"Banno" can be as annoying as you to try to have a conversation with, in this he speaks for me as well. You are obscure Apo. It took me ages to...

That sounds like general monism to me, rather than physicalism in particular.

Sorry I missed that. But what have you said about an event when you say it is physical? What is it about an event that makes it physical?

OK, so why does experience accompany it sometimes, and not others?

Are you able to flesh out your concept of 'physical'? Sometimes people seem to mean 'not mental' or even 'not supernatural' Sometimes people seem to m...

They may well do, but why? What role does experience play in that? Why can't neural activity, hormonal feedback and sensory processing happen without ...

But you think consciousness is real.

The classic functionalist straw man trotted out yet again.

You're a functionalist, and therefore wrong. Your own view seems to be a case of what @"Wolfgang" calls metaphysical positing: when a system does such...

Dunno. Banks?

It's really only substance dualists who think consciousness is a 'separate thing' and even then it's a conclusion not an assumption, at least ostensib...

A zombie or android could do all that. Nothing in there entails consciousness. You may be right (or not) that consciousness requires memory and predic...

Ooooooh no it isn't

Attribute regularities to will rather than law, maybe.

Check out Goodman's new riddle of induction if you haven't already. It's fun.

How does that fit with your view that desires play no role in causing behaviour? I think you explained it before but I can't remember.

There's lots of trinities. I struggle to reconcile them, maybe they're just different and i shouldn't try. Substance, form, function Cardinal, fixed, ...

I think both, but I'm not a compatibilist. To my horror, I'm probably going to sound a bit like @"apokrisis". We are determined by things we give a sh...

Maybe, but ordinary usage intervenes.

As a panpsychist I've been been considering whether the distinction between intentional cause and non intentional is sustainable. I think it may be, b...

I enjoyed your OP. The section on 'Complex Systems' doesn't actually mention causation. What is being caused exactly, and what is causing it? I've bee...

i think it's a theory rather than a definition. Most people who understand how to use the word 'consciousness' do not attribute it to matter in genera...

Yes, i think that's probably the most accurate way to think about it. Exactly what properties substance/matter/reality/whatever intrinsically has is i...

And everyone does. Some made-up stuff works better than others, but it's all made up. There are no givens, apart from perhaps ordinary language.

There is nothing it is like to be conscious per se, unless, perhaps, there is something it is like to be conscious of consciousness. Consciousness is ...

That's interesting, thanks. I hadn't thought of that that way before. Yes it's a serious objection I think.

Presumably you'd say that the relationships between micro-properties and emergent properties are lawlike. If so are some laws emergent then? Or have a...

I think it may be. There are (at least) two problems the panpsychist must tackle at some point: 1) What are the units supposed to be? (Searle's challe...

That seems much more like theory than definition to me. The other things in your list may be definition, depending on who you ask.