> the most straightforward way to solve the "Hard
> Problem of consciousness" (see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness)

>> the most straightforward way to solve the "Hard
>> Problem of consciousness" (see
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness)

>
> I'd like to join in here but can not get past the ambiguity of qualia.
>
> Rather, if this 'hard problem' is the point then, for me, it is easier to
> consider one question from the above page.
>
> "Why is there a subjective component to experience?"
>
> Does this address what you want to discuss?

> Hi, I was exploring the hypothesis of "panpsychism" and some
> philosopfical
> problems arised soon. I think this is a hypothesis which deserve
> consideration because it is the most straightforward way to solve the
> "Hard
> Problem of consciousness" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness)
>
> My idea of panspychism is the following:
> * every elementary unit of matter has qualia and makes "decision".
> These
> "decisions" are influenced by its qualia and may influence its state
> and its
> interactions with other elements of matter
> * this behaviour, shared by a very large amount of pieces of matter,
> produce
> a large scale behaviour of the matter known as the physical laws
> (i.e.
> physical laws are an emergent property of matter)
> * when elementary units of matter form a complex structure like a ...

> "He admits to the difficulty that still remains of adding up many
> subjects of experience to become a single subject of experience such
> as we are, or at least seem to be.

>> "Why is there a subjective component to experience?"
>>
>> Does this address what you want to discuss?

>
> Yes, I used the word "qualia" to mean "subjective experience".

> pokips...@yahoo.it wrote:

> "Of course, the common sense view refrains from such a gigantic leap
> [panpsychism]. It supposes some sort of emergence .... [But, argues
> Strawson] There is no way we can derive consciousness from the
> physiological, chemical, physical or other acknowledged properties of
> human or feline tissue. And, Strawson argues, we cannot just say, well
> that's how it is. Emergence cannot be brute -- 'there being absolutely
> no reason in the nature of things why the emerging thing is as it
> is' (p. 18).

> Go 4th wrote:

>> pokips...@yahoo.it wrote:

> [..]

>> "Of course, the common sense view refrains from such a gigantic leap
>> [panpsychism]. It supposes some sort of emergence .... [But, argues
>> Strawson] There is no way we can derive consciousness from the
>> physiological, chemical, physical or other acknowledged properties of
>> human or feline tissue. And, Strawson argues, we cannot just say, well
>> that's how it is. Emergence cannot be brute -- 'there being absolutely
>> no reason in the nature of things why the emerging thing is as it
>> is' (p. 18).

>
> This kind of argument exhibits what happens when people with limited
> knowledge make huge pronouncements. (I'm certain I've committed similar
> foolishness, but I do try to be aware of the limits of my knowledge.)
>
> You can't derive the the arc of the fountain from the chemical or
> physical properties of water molecules, either. Yet there it is. It
> happens to be the same arc as the path of a tossed ball. A ball will ...

>>> "Why is there a subjective component to experience?"
>>>
>>> Does this address what you want to discuss?

>>
>> Yes, I used the word "qualia" to mean "subjective experience".

>
> OK then one answer is: there is subjective experience because the
> observer or actor has limitations.
>
> As far as this being a component..?? Is there then an objective component
> also, I wonder?

> Go 4th wrote:

>> pokips...@yahoo.it wrote:

> [..]

>> "Of course, the common sense view refrains from such a gigantic leap
>> [panpsychism]. It supposes some sort of emergence .... [But, argues
>> Strawson] There is no way we can derive consciousness from the
>> physiological, chemical, physical or other acknowledged properties of
>> human or feline tissue. And, Strawson argues, we cannot just say, well
>> that's how it is. Emergence cannot be brute -- 'there being absolutely
>> no reason in the nature of things why the emerging thing is as it
>> is' (p. 18).

>
> This kind of argument exhibits what happens when people with limited
> knowledge make huge pronouncements. (I'm certain I've committed similar
> foolishness, but I do try to be aware of the limits of my knowledge.)
>
> You can't derive the the arc of the fountain from the chemical or physical
> properties of water molecules, either. Yet there it is. It happens to be ...