|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Date: Feb 10, 2008 05:58
The attribution of consciousness to non-living things seems less acceptable,
despite the fact that, in the absence of criteria for making that
attribution, the possibility cannot be dismissed. It might be claimed that
it is equally inconceivable to regard a rock as being conscious as it is to
regard a person as being non-conscious, but there is another aspect to this
line of thought that follows from the absence of criteria for making the
attribution of consciousness: Are individual cells conscious? Are molecules
conscious? Are atoms conscious? And if it is at all possible that atoms
*are* conscious, then rocks can hardly be considered entirely *devoid* of
consciousness -- rather they would be collections or aggregates of conscious
entities, instead of conscious entities in themselves (something...
|
| Show full article (0.99Kb) |
|
| | 91 Comments |
|
|
Author: Sir FrederickSir Frederick Date: Feb 10, 2008 06:24
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 13:58:22 GMT, "andy-k" wrote:
>The attribution of consciousness to non-living things seems less acceptable,
>despite the fact that, in the absence of criteria for making that
>attribution, the possibility cannot be dismissed. It might...
|
| Show full article (1.52Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: zinniczinnic Date: Feb 10, 2008 06:55
On Feb 10, 8:24 am, Sir Frederick fuzzysys.com> wrote:> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 13:58:22 GMT, "andy-k" wrote:
>>The attribution of consciousness to non-living things seems less acceptable,
>>despite the fact that, in the absence of criteria for making that
>>attribution, the possibility cannot be dismissed. It might be claimed that
>>it is equally inconceivable to regard a rock as being conscious as it is to
>>regard a person as being non-conscious, but there is another aspect to this
>>line of thought that follows from the absence of criteria for making the
>>attribution of consciousness: Are individual cells conscious? Are molecules
>>conscious? Are atoms conscious? And if it is at all possible that atoms
>>*are* conscious, then rocks can hardly be considered entirely *devoid* of
>>consciousness -- rather they would be collections or aggregates of conscious
>>entities, instead of conscious entities in themselves (something like a
>>crowd of people). What this panpsychist view obviates are the difficulties
>>associated with the view that consciousness has somehow 'emerged' in a world
>>that was initially devoid of it.
>
> What is the view called wherein "consciousness" is considered
> as "just" another quale or representation? In this case the representation is
> of brain states rather than sensor states, but if a mechanism "works", such as ...
|
| Show full article (1.68Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: John JonesJohn Jones Date: Feb 10, 2008 06:55
andy-k wrote:
> The attribution of consciousness to non-living things seems less acceptable,
> despite the fact that, in the absence of criteria for making that
> attribution, the possibility cannot be dismissed. It might be claimed that
> it is equally inconceivable to regard a rock as being conscious as it is to
> regard a person as being non-conscious, but there is another aspect to this
> line of thought that follows from the absence of criteria for making the
> attribution of consciousness: Are individual cells conscious? Are molecules
> conscious? Are atoms conscious? And if it is at all possible that atoms
> *are* conscious, then rocks can hardly be considered entirely *devoid* of
> consciousness -- rather they would be collections or aggregates of conscious
> entities, instead of conscious...
|
| Show full article (1.19Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: thinkerthinker Date: Feb 10, 2008 07:07
> The attribution of consciousness to non-living things seems less
> acceptable,
> despite the fact that, in the absence of criteria for making that
> attribution, the possibility cannot be dismissed.
The criteria of prudence suggests not going overboard in extending the reach
of our terms (eg, consciousness). Until proven otherwise, "Stupid is as
stupid does." - following wisdom of Forest Gump's mother - is a good way to
stay out of trouble.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: zinniczinnic Date: Feb 10, 2008 08:16
On Feb 10, 7:58 am, "andy-k" wrote:
> The attribution of consciousness to non-living things seems less acceptable,
> despite the fact that, in the absence of criteria for making that
> attribution, the possibility cannot be dismissed. It might be claimed that
> it is equally inconceivable to regard a rock as being conscious as it is to
> regard a person as being non-conscious, but there is another aspect to this
> line of thought that follows from the absence of criteria for making the
> attribution of consciousness: Are individual cells conscious? Are molecules
> conscious? Are atoms conscious? And if it is at all possible that atoms
> *are* conscious, then rocks can hardly be considered entirely *devoid* of
> consciousness -- rather they would be collections or aggregates...
|
| Show full article (1.91Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Feb 10, 2008 08:53
"zinnic" wrote:
> Iron did not exist in the universe before their emergence in the evolution
> of the stars.
Iron is the name given to a phenomenon appearing within the
first-person subjective perspective upon a world. The first-person
subjective perspective upon a world is *not* a phenomenon
appearing within the first-person subjective perspective upon a
world
-- on this view it's the brute fact of the epistemic "all there is".
Consequently you're not comparing like with like, and since there
is nothing like the first-person subjective perspective upon a world
with which to compare it, all such caricatures fail.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ArtArt Date: Feb 10, 2008 10:01
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 13:58:22 GMT, "andy-k" wrote:
>The attribution of consciousness to non-living things seems less acceptable,
>despite the fact that, in the absence of criteria for making that
>attribution, the possibility cannot be dismissed. It might...
|
| Show full article (1.69Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Feb 10, 2008 10:07
"Art" wrote:
> Seager uses the term "generation problem" to describe the difficulty
> of explaining how minds/consciousness emerged from matter. Enjoy
> the pic (applet) at the top of his "Works in Progress" page:
> http://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/~seager/mywork.htm
> Some of these articles concern pansychism but the one article that
> I think develops his case is the one I supply a link to on my own
> web page:
> http://members.aol.com/NeoNoetics/CONSC_INFO_PANPSY.html
> I think his double slit experiments illustration, quantum eraser, and
> notion of information as fundamental are particularly interesting.
Some great links here Art -- thanks.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: 3333333333 Date: Feb 10, 2008 10:22
andy-k wrote:
> The attribution of consciousness to non-living things seems less acceptable,
> despite the fact that, in the absence of criteria for making that
> attribution, the possibility cannot be dismissed. It might be claimed that
> it is equally inconceivable to regard a rock as being conscious as it is to
> regard a person as being non-conscious, but there is another aspect to this
> line of thought that follows from the absence of criteria for making the
> attribution of consciousness: Are individual cells conscious? Are molecules
> conscious? Are atoms conscious? And if it is at all possible that atoms
> *are* conscious, then rocks can hardly be considered entirely *devoid* of
> consciousness -- rather they would be collections or aggregates of conscious
> entities, instead of conscious...
|
| Show full article (1.59Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
