Banno

I don't know. Is your argument that hence, panpsychism?

It sorta goes with the OP.

Not "...only..."! It's by way of showing how we can construct a clean taxonomy if we understand the terms used in this way. It serves the purpose here...

Good question. In a word, expediency. An account should indeed include all the various illocutionary forces associated with the use of the word. But i...

:up:

Probably.

This is something that credulousness will decide! :cool:

Except that rocks are not conscious.

We don't know. Nevertheless, that is the thesis.

Notice that how we justify our beliefs is a different question to which statements are true? We justify our beliefs in all sorts of different ways. Th...

Well, no, it produces the observer. That's rather the point.

It's a wonder that them physicist get anything right.

I'm not advocating any particular answer here. I don't know whence consciousness. The argument here is that panpsychism does not help.

The whole of the Mandelbrot set is found in Z^2+C. The calculation is deterministic. That is, a chaotic system is only unpredictable in practice - ope...

Actually, it's quite sensational...

Emergentism is the thesis that things doing what they do produces an observer. So I can't see that anything novel has happened in this argument. SO, y...

and all: Perhaps it might clarify things to return to the first example from the Del Santo article: We then introduce an error into the measurement of...

Did you misword that? That an infinite amount of information could not be held in a finite volume is a result of Landauer’s principle, apparently; alt...

Oh, Harry.

You know, I read that twice and still have no idea what your point is.

After the recent pogrom this thread seems unfair.

Are you asking how we justify our beliefs?

:up: Yet we are conscious, and rocks are not. If your point is that both emergentism and panpsychism assume some sort of hierarchy, which we might be ...

Neat. Be aware of Stove's Gem. It is the argument that, since we only have access to our experiences, we cannot have access to the truth. Stove called...

If you like; There's a difference between a thing being at a particular position and a thing being measured to be at a particular position.

@"Kenosha Kid", indeed, before you enter into a discussion with Meta, do take a look at the 0.999... = 1 thread.

Sure. My next point would be that, if a rock is unconscious but a bacteria is conscious, there must be some level of complexity at which an unconsciou...

If what is true is what you think you have perceived, then how is what is true distinct from what you choose to believe? Is there then to be no link b...

Repetition is not constructing an argument... Again, why should feeling/awareness be incremental all the way down? What feeling or awareness does a ro...

Why? The OP offers no support for this dubious contention. We seem to have a rash of panpsychism on the forums; to which the best response remains the...

But of course you could only know there was such a consensus via your own conscious experience... Take care lest you find yourself permanently up the ...

Hmm. The first and third concern epistemology. Del santo's Principle of Infinite Precision characterises it thus: The second concerns ontology: Del Sa...

Well, that's curious. The correspondence theory is usually that a statement will be true if it corresponds to the facts. But I see problems here that ...

It is both pleasing and surprising to see a Trump supporter become interested in truth...

That's what we in the trade call having a belief. It's not the same as being true.

The problem with coherence theory is, as you say, that it fails to distinguish what we believe from what is true. The problem with correspondence theo...

On review, Anscombe seems to me not to be saying that even if we had perfect information we could not predict the landing place of the ball, but rathe...

Why would you think that? What have I said that would lead to that conclusion? Or are you just making assumptions?

Actually, yes, that's pretty much what this thread is about. This, @"Hanover", is the issue in Anscombe's article, so well articulated above by @"tim ...

You're new. You will need to present more than this barely articulate drivel should you wish to receive responses here.

Russel, On the notion of Cause He's got a point. A few times I've seen it written on these forums that Newtons first law is the law of causation. Of c...

One puts a kettle on a fire, and it does not heat up. There is, as per Hume, no contradiction in this; the description is coherent; we know what has b...

If you assume that here is an actual physical value for each item in the Galton box; and that this value could be known.

Could they be the same?

As he concludes, the value of the article is in showing that there is an alternative to determinism within classical physics; not in showing that it i...

Of course; but which one: Maxwell's or Laplace's?

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2003.07411.pdf

One argument presented in the article (if I have understood it aright) is that a finite volume of space can only hold a finite quantity of information...

That is what is questioned by the Del Santo article.

Sure. The present conversation is not about quantum randomness. It's about indeterminacy in classical physics.