Post reply

Reply to the message by dhw

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> rom: [i]This subject begs questions like is anything conscious, a la Susan Blackmore? What is [the] difference between everything being conscious and nothing being conscious? Is consciousness anything other than an exchange of energy? In his book Dennett described the idea, that if a philosopher&apos;s zombie could respond exactly like a conscious human being then to all intents and purposes that zombie is conscious.[/i]   Always nice to hear from you, rom, though I hope you&apos;ll stick around long enough to read a response. It seems to me that the first two questions take us onto the epistemological level at which there is no point in discussing anything. Consciousness and intelligence are almost impossible to define and to quantify, which is why philosophers can play word games till we all give up. In order to communicate, we have to accept certain commonsense premises (common sense is a philosophical category, not a made-up term). We simply need to agree on basic premises. I suggest to you that as far as we know, a stone is likely to be less conscious than a dog which is likely to be less conscious than a human. If you disagree, that is the end of the discussion. If you agree, we can discuss panpsychism, of which differing degrees of consciousness are a fundamental aspect.    As regards Question 3, I don&apos;t know what is meant by an exchange of energy. Between what and what?-As regards the zombie, I would suggest that there are degrees not only of consciousness, but also of self-consciousness. I would argue that a zombie, just like a drunkard, will be less conscious and less self-conscious than a sober, sentient human being. A robot will be less conscious than a human and will have no self-consciousness. All of this can of course be strongly denied by anyone who wants to mount the epistemological high horse. But if those concerned agree on this basic premise, we can then discuss the possibility that just as individual, unselfconscious cells form communities which perform functions such as digestion, fighting illness, pumping oxygen, registering sights and sounds ... all of which require the sort of knowledge and expertise we associate with intelligence ... so too might the unselfconscious energies and materials of an eternal universe have formed communities that also function with the sort of knowledge and expertise we associate with intelligence. Again, I&apos;m not asking anyone to accept the theory ... I don&apos;t accept it myself ... but if the God theory and the chance theory are worth serious consideration, why not consider this one as well? Or of course we can ignore the subject entirely and play philosophical games.