Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
dichotomy

Anthropoid Consciousness Origins?

Recommended Posts

Nobody listened. :-(

 

You confuse me bro. I can see no reason why you wouldn't want information which is grounded in reality instead of information which is grounded nowhere, but whatever.

 

 

Ideas are good. Imagination is good. Stating something which is counter to existing knowledge, cannot be proven, and which makes little sense is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You confuse me bro. I can see no reason why you wouldn't want information which is grounded in reality instead of information which is grounded nowhere, but whatever.

 

 

Ideas are good. Imagination is good. Stating something which is counter to existing knowledge, cannot be proven, and which makes little sense is not.

 

Let me explain.

 

I read Pioneer’s comments as being purely ideas that may, or may not, hold merit.

 

Also, if I’m interpreted as encouraging unfounded ideas and the pseudo-knowledgeable, instead of what I was doing, that is, simply reacting to theatrics such as, “FOR THE LOVE OF GOD STOP ALREADY”. Then what can I say? Maybe there is forum rule like, no theatrics allowed?

 

I do want info grounded in reality. But I also would like to hear intuitive assumptions and ideas. It might be just my incorrect interpretation of Lucaspa’s comments. That is, suggesting that I only want a hypothesize or speculation. When what I wanted are assumptions, hypothesizes, ideas and solid science. I interpret Lucaspa’s point as being that this thread may not be the correct place for assumptions, and I fully agree. That is why I suggest this thread may be better located in pseudoscience.

 

Perhaps another thread on consciousness needs to be started in this forum, with only questions, hypothesis’s and proven scientific data? I must also apologise for going down the assumptions path in this forum, as I wasn’t clear on the rules.

 

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey, have you got a reasonably good link to what pansychism is supposed to mean? I'd be interested if it involves matter/energy holding 'conscious' properties, in an 'unconscious' way.

 

There is also this if you can find it:

 

Consciousness, information and panpsychism

 

JCS, 2 (3), 1995, pp. 272-88

 

William Seager,

University of Toronto,

1265 Military Trail,

Scarborough,

Ontario M1C 1A4,

Canada.

 

Email: seager@lake.scar.utoronto.ca

 

Abstract:

The generation problem is to explain how material configurations or processes can produce conscious experience. David Chalmers urges that this is what makes the problem of consciousness really difficult. He proposes to side-step the generation problem by proposing that consciousness is an absolutely fundamental feature of the world. I am inclined to agree that the generation problem is real and believe that taking consciousness to be fundamental is promising. But I take issue with Chalmers about what it is to be a fundamental feature of the world. In fact, I argue that taking the idea seriously ought to lead to some form of panpsychism. Powerful objections have been advanced against panpsychism, but I attempt to outline a form of the doctrine which can evade them. In the end, I suspect that we will face a choice between panpsychism and rethinking the legitimacy of the generation problem itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.