Eugen

You are right, but not for the reason you think. There was a mistake in my initial post.

I don't really understand him. On one hand, he says particles can't form consciousness because they have 0 consciousness, but on the other hand, he th...

But that's not the point of my issue with Jaworsky

I'm not sure about Laszlo's view on emergence, but Jaworsky seems odd to me. He admits consciousness is irreducible to matter, but he says those prope...

No, you didn't. Your answer isn't connected to my question.

Thanks! Solved, although for some reason I cannot provide the link for the dissertation, but you can google it with the name I provided.

I didn't read his books, I saw a presentation of his and I also read some blogs of his and a dissertation of a guy about his work. https://podcasts.ox...

You didn't pay attention, that wasn't my question.

- No, there are no physical properties in Idealism, there are only mind properties. Mr. Chomsky created/uses Mysterianism to conflate two things that ...

What do you mean the same kind? What makes them the same kind? What is the difference between same kind and different kind? If motion is so mysterious...

My point is this is not related to the hard problem! Geeeez

It seems to me you're suggesting there's something interesting there that I'm too ignorant/dumb to see it. Could you please shed some light onto it fo...

Yes, exactly, the hard problem is a logical problem, not a question "How is it like to see a sunset?". And yes, there is no serious counterargument so...

Dude, I was sarcastic... of course I won't start the classic silly debate ''Hey, we can get to flying from parts that don't fly." But I will say this:...

And it's irrelevant anyway. Chomsky doesn't address the hard problem saying it has a ''composition fallacy". Chomsky redefines the hard problem in a w...

Really? How come? I want details, please!

The hard problem states it's illogical to get consciousness from non-consciousness, and there is absolutely no answer to that to this moment. So it re...

Manuel, you're falling into his trap. Let me explain. There are two dimensions here: empirical and philosophical/logical. Chomsky thinks empirical evi...

"What seemed“brute emergence”was assimilated into science ordinary emergence—not, to be sure,of the liquidity variety,relying on conceivability. I see...

I have no interest to make this a me vs Chomsky thing. Forget about my personal opinion. My issue is that we're stuck in a grey zone when we could eas...

But being over and above makes it radically different. That's the point.

So what exact part/s of Property Dualism would Chomsky reject in order to say he wouldn't accept Property Dualism?

But that is Property Dualism.

Ok, I think I'll have my last shot. My strong emergence implies Property Dualism (not Substance Dualism!) and consciousness would be over and above it...

I will. Thank you again for your answers!

Thank you! But heavy is not fundamental, bricks are not heavy. Heavy must be > 10kg, and each brick has 1 kg. Yes, I asked several times, but I want a...

What's his address?

Heavyness strongly emergent - I doubt Chomsky would believe that. Heavy is just an arbitrary quantity for mass. What the f is strongly emergent about ...

Manuel look, I appreciate your effort but it seems to me you intentionally avoid some of my clear direct questions.

So Chomsky would say liquidity is irreducible?

- You're missing my point. No, it is not weakly emergent because our theories describe it, it is weakly emergent because there is no property of liqui...

That's exactly my point. Moreover, I don't even care if one is surprised or not. There is a clear difference between weak and strong emergence and it ...

Thank you and sorry for the late answer! I'm very confused when it comes to Chomsky, so it takes time for me to come up with something. I. I know the ...

Thank you for your contribuition! I will come back with answers, but for now, I am reading Chomsky's Mysteries Nature Hidden. I have read a bit and I'...

Thank you! ''I)" is pretty clear. But for ''II)" I have some things to say. Logic is enough to accept that consciousness is either a. 100% reducible, ...

Agree. It can be helpful at times, but not a trustworthy source.

What exactly is the advantage of information over matter when it comes to explaining consciousness?

I'm not debating that. I said ''IF the hard-problem is real..."

I'm trying to relate your comment with the OP. I can't.

:up:

You've made your point and I appreciate your sincerity. Thank you!

I was ill-inspired to use the example of information. I should have written ''any fundamental substance", you can call it X. The only condition is tha...

So, in your opinion, only science can tell us what is and isn't a ''fact"? I'm not going to debate that, I want to understand you.

I can resonate with that.

Moreover, if you imagine a green bird, nobody will find that image in your brain. But that's a refutation of materialism, not a refutation of fundamen...

''Meaning" is kind of consciousness....experience... it's vague

I did, because I think weak emergence is eliminativism. I might be wrong though...

Anything that is not consciousness or conscious.

So after all, the problem does not reside in the gap between non-subjective experience and subjective experience. Information, in your opinion, has th...

It seems to me our difference is in language. Is there a real fundamental difference between the interaction between atoms in a chair versus the inter...