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:

> Hyjylyj: [i]I, too, find it impossible to engage meaningfully in any discussion wherein our own consciousness is questioned or doubted; it feels like the revocation of our license to question or doubt things, including said consciousness. The circle is a pleasing shape in general, but not as regards logic.[/i]-You proceed to ask a series of philosophical questions which "possess the thought-destroying potential of koans." Yes, indeed. And there is not one mention of the subject that forms the subject of this thread ... namely, panpsychism.   Hyjyljyj: [i]I wouldn&apos;t necessarily go as far as labeling someone who does undertake to question their own consciousness as being on the "epistemological high horse", regardless of how catchy I might find that phrase--that is, unless they stubbornly stick to it in an apparent gambit to look hip or to effectively make the discussion difficult or impossible. What would be the point? We&apos;re all conscious of having better things to do.[/i]-And that is exactly the problem here. Instead of discussing the subject ... namely panpsychism as a possible third way to replace the god theory and the chance theory ... the focus has switched to the epistemological impossibility of pinning down the meaning of terms which in normal discourse we are all prepared to accept, and indeed have to accept if discussion is to be possible. I suspect there was a twinkle in Romansh&apos;s eye when he wrote his post: his parting shot was "have fun"!