bert1

I'll see if I can explain with a simple example (it has to be simple because I don't know much science): To what temperature do I have to heat this wa...

Yes, either by a theory or by redefining these things as experiential.

I don't think you've misunderstood me, but you may have misunderstood physicalism. A theory of consciousness should ideally be able to specify the nec...

We agree! Physicalists, specifically functionalists A robust theory of chemistry will predict which systems are chemical systems. A robust theory of l...

Thanks, that's helpful.

Yes I agree, sorry I made a typo. Corrected above.

I think I might deny that there is no evidence for physicalism. I'm interested in what people think is evidence for physicalism. EDIT: Confusing typo ...

I've just tried to explain panpsychism to someone IRL. They said 'A treehugger?'

Yes, that's the hard problem. It's the general question: "How is it exactly that experience is caused by/realised by/is identical with the functions o...

Panpsychists and dualists probably do typically dismiss the possibility of explaining consciousness (in general terms that would constitute an answer ...

Sure, but that doesn't make the problem any easier does it? If it does, please do explain.

The problem of why such-and-such function is correlated with this experience rather than that is not the hard problem.

One point Hoffman makes very well is that we have made no progress whatever in explaining how it is that a particular neural event is (or causes or re...

Interesting. Didn't know that

/uploads/resized/files/hd/5hp4sw3wpydg9j3k.png Looks like a gem of an article, but I can only see the first page on JSTOR. 1974, well before Chalmers....

Still no ought, intentionality, consciousness or value

Oh! That's interesting. Which is the most recent convention? Are you being old fashioned or current street?

He did and he deserves a lot of credit for that. I wish he'd gone panpsychist like Sprigge instead of wheeling God in to look at things when we weren'...

Surely that would be the object of your experience? I suppose either would work. Brits abroad.

I'll read these after you have stood on your head for half an hour. I want a video to prove it.

Fair enough

I'm not sure if these questions are rhetorical or not. I'll have go anyway, I'm a sucker for a quiz. 1) You introduced commonsense and science, I was ...

Does idealism break physics?

Sticky this please mods!

The point is that what you call science does not rule them out, or indeed in. It has nothing to say on the subject of consciousness itself, although t...

Very interesting! Thanks.

I've just realised we may be talking at cross purposes. I've bolded the relevant bit. Eliminativism is exactly the view that nothing is conscious, so ...

Yeah, I've never been able to get to grips with his stuff. I don't think I'm the only one.

The point about zombies is not whether or not you believe in them (nobody except Daniel Dennett does), but whether a functionalist account like yours ...

@"Wayfarer" I should have just said ontological idealism generally instead of specifying Berkeley. Berkeley is just the original ontological idealist....

No one believes in them. EDIT: except eliminatavists I guess

My complaint isn't that it hasn't. It's that people think it has.

Probably. Sorry, I'm a bit careless

Sure, but when @"Banno" criticises idealism, he is criticising one kind of idealism, namely solipsism. And he often doesn't say this. I'm not defendin...

@"apokrisis" @"Banno" Apo's approach to bridging the is/ought gap and his approach to the hard problem of consciousness seem very similar if not the s...

Thanks, I'm not sure if I read that debate with @"Landru Guide Us" or not, but your post makes your position clear. I think your position that idealis...

Those three puzzles are more of a problem for solipsism than idealism. But I think you think that idealism readily collapses into solipsism. Is that r...

You missed off the start of the second sentence! Try again. It matters. Nevertheless, I'm not clear what Wayfarer's position is either. Apo has nailed...

Only to the extent that they have the power to. If a person is wholly weak, no matter how resentful they are, they are not dangerous at all.

It's much easier and more tempting for the strong to be evil. Moral culpability can only attach to the strong. If it attaches to the weak, it is only ...

Haha!

I'm learning to live with it

Nothing, I suggest. What makes you 180 Proof is not consciousness, but your body, history, emotions, etc. Consciousness bears subjectivity, but not ch...

Maybe, but one crow does not look out of the eyes of another, any more than when @"180 Proof" peers into his soul, I feel like an asshole. EDIT: I don...

Coward!

!

I often disagree with Banno, but not on this. I can't discern an answer in your posts.

But that doesn't tell us which one to prefer. Or even which one I prefer.

No it isn't