DavidMcC wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

pl0bs wrote:Nupsels, you made such a claim.

Are you arguing for panspychism or not?

No.

Of course. A flock of birds, a storm, a cloud of electrons or a solution of molecules can divide or merge because there is no private internal subjective essence splitting or merging. All that happens is that some go this way and some go that way. The dace varies. In panpsychism we must suppose that the mysterious private subjective that is me is a combination of private subjectives that are not me, that multiple experience of others can become quite different experience for me. How could that possibly work?

It happens in split-brain patients, no? How can you reject panpsychism on such grounds then?

...

AFAIK, panspychism does not restrict itself to split brain patients. Therefore, it should be rejected as an explanation of the behaviour of split-brain patients (or anyone else). Such patients really do have two personalities, sharing one body, because the two brain hemispheres function entirely separately in the absence of the corpus callosum, having their own opinions, etc.

Panpsychism is a metaphysics, as is physicalism, and they arent put forth as an explanation for split-brains. Graham earlier claimed that splitting/merging of minds is absolutely impossible/ineffable, and rejected panpsychism on those ground. I pointed out that it isnt impossible, since it happens with split-brains. He then acknowledged it is possible, but only with physicalism.

pl0bs wrote:

Panpsychism is a metaphysics, as is physicalism, and they arent put forth as an explanation for split-brains. Graham earlier claimed that splitting/merging of minds is absolutely impossible/ineffable, and rejected panpsychism on those ground. I pointed out that it isnt impossible, since it happens with split-brains. He then acknowledged it is possible, but only with physicalism.[/quote]

That is reportable misrepresentation.

GrahamH wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

GrahamH wrote:Are you arguing for panspychism or not?

No.

OK, what is your position?

C didnt originate from any combination of basic physical ingredients and processes (that includes brains). C influences and is influenced by physical processes. Human C is complex, primitive C is less complex. The experiental content of more primitive C is not known unless experienced. Any known characteristics of C may be extrapolated back in time to more primitive forms, unless dependent on specific physical processes. That includes splitting/merging. Because of the non-spatial nature of C, it makes no sense to tie its boundaries to those of physical ingredients. Also i dont believe our current knowledge of particles and forces is complete.

pl0bs wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

GrahamH wrote:Are you arguing for panspychism or not?

No.

OK, what is your position?

C didnt originate from any combination of basic physical ingredients and processes (that includes brains). C influences and is influenced by physical processes. Human C is complex, primitive C is less complex. The experiental content of more primitive C is not known unless experienced. Any known characteristics of C may be extrapolated back in time to more primitive forms, unless dependent on specific physical processes. That includes splitting/merging. Because of the non-spatial nature of C, it makes no sense to tie its boundaries to those of physical ingredients. Also i dont believe our current knowledge of particles and forces is complete.

That sounds a lot like panpsychism, or dualism, if you separate C from matter.

What do you mean by consciousness? Private subjective experiencing?

What does set the boundaries of consciousness? What separate you from the chair?

How can experiencing what it's like to be atoms combine to become what it's like to be human and lose what it's like to be atoms?

How can what it's like to be pl0bs be diced up to become what it's like to be fingers or spleen or hair clippings?

pl0bs wrote:Human C is complex, primitive C is less complex.

How can one C be more "complex" than another? What makes one C more complex than another? Its structure? Its thicker array of interacting parts? Its schematics?

pl0bs wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Are you arguing for panspychism or not?

No.

Of course. A flock of birds, a storm, a cloud of electrons or a solution of molecules can divide or merge because there is no private internal subjective essence splitting or merging. All that happens is that some go this way and some go that way. The dace varies. In panpsychism we must suppose that the mysterious private subjective that is me is a combination of private subjectives that are not me, that multiple experience of others can become quite different experience for me. How could that possibly work?

It happens in split-brain patients, no? How can you reject panpsychism on such grounds then?

...

AFAIK, panspychism does not restrict itself to split brain patients. Therefore, it should be rejected as an explanation of the behaviour of split-brain patients (or anyone else). Such patients really do have two personalities, sharing one body, because the two brain hemispheres function entirely separately in the absence of the corpus callosum, having their own opinions, etc.

Panpsychism is a metaphysics, as is physicalism, and they arent put forth as an explanation for split-brains. Graham earlier claimed that splitting/merging of minds is absolutely impossible/ineffable, and rejected panpsychism on those ground. I pointed out that it isnt impossible, since it happens with split-brains. He then acknowledged it is possible, but only with physicalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism

In philosophy, panpsychism is the view that consciousness, mind or soul (psyche) is a universal feature of all things, and the primordial feature from which all others are derived. Panpsychists see themselves as minds in a world of minds.

What has that got to do with split-brain patients? Panpsychism is nonsense, irrespective of relevance to split brains (which was someone-else's idea, BTW, not mine).

GrahamH wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

pl0bs wrote:No.

OK, what is your position?

C didnt originate from any combination of basic physical ingredients and processes (that includes brains). C influences and is influenced by physical processes. Human C is complex, primitive C is less complex. The experiental content of more primitive C is not known unless experienced. Any known characteristics of C may be extrapolated back in time to more primitive forms, unless dependent on specific physical processes. That includes splitting/merging. Because of the non-spatial nature of C, it makes no sense to tie its boundaries to those of physical ingredients. Also i dont believe our current knowledge of particles and forces is complete.

That sounds a lot like panpsychism, or dualism, if you separate C from matter.

What do you mean by consciousness? Private subjective experiencing?

What does set the boundaries of consciousness? What separate you from the chair?

How can experiencing what it's like to be atoms combine to become what it's like to be human and lose what it's like to be atoms?

How can what it's like to be pl0bs be diced up to become what it's like to be fingers or spleen or hair clippings?

Why do you think atoms are conscious?

DavidMcC wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

pl0bs wrote:No.

It happens in split-brain patients, no? How can you reject panpsychism on such grounds then?

...

AFAIK, panspychism does not restrict itself to split brain patients. Therefore, it should be rejected as an explanation of the behaviour of split-brain patients (or anyone else). Such patients really do have two personalities, sharing one body, because the two brain hemispheres function entirely separately in the absence of the corpus callosum, having their own opinions, etc.

Panpsychism is a metaphysics, as is physicalism, and they arent put forth as an explanation for split-brains. Graham earlier claimed that splitting/merging of minds is absolutely impossible/ineffable, and rejected panpsychism on those ground. I pointed out that it isnt impossible, since it happens with split-brains. He then acknowledged it is possible, but only with physicalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism

In philosophy, panpsychism is the view that consciousness, mind or soul (psyche) is a universal feature of all things, and the primordial feature from which all others are derived. Panpsychists see themselves as minds in a world of minds.

What has that got to do with split-brain patients? Panpsychism is nonsense, irrespective of relevance to split brains (which was someone-else's idea, BTW, not mine).

How can one claim that panpsychism is false because splitting/merging of minds is impossible, when split-brain patients are examples of the splitting/merging of minds?

Animavore wrote:

pl0bs wrote:Human C is complex, primitive C is less complex.

How can one C be more "complex" than another? What makes one C more complex than another? Its structure? Its thicker array of interacting parts? Its schematics?

Its quite amazing, but humans have brains, and they differ from brains of other animals.

pl0bs wrote:

Animavore wrote:

pl0bs wrote:Human C is complex, primitive C is less complex.

How can one C be more "complex" than another? What makes one C more complex than another? Its structure? Its thicker array of interacting parts? Its schematics?

Its quite amazing, but humans have brains, and they differ from brains of other animals.

Yes. I know humans have brains, and those brains are rather complex, more complex than others. But I'm not talking about brains. I'm talking about that non-physical stuff you call 'C'.

Can you answer the questions posed?

pl0bs wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:
AFAIK, panspychism does not restrict itself to split brain patients. Therefore, it should be rejected as an explanation of the behaviour of split-brain patients (or anyone else). Such patients really do have two personalities, sharing one body, because the two brain hemispheres function entirely separately in the absence of the corpus callosum, having their own opinions, etc.

Panpsychism is a metaphysics, as is physicalism, and they arent put forth as an explanation for split-brains. Graham earlier claimed that splitting/merging of minds is absolutely impossible/ineffable, and rejected panpsychism on those ground. I pointed out that it isnt impossible, since it happens with split-brains. He then acknowledged it is possible, but only with physicalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism

In philosophy, panpsychism is the view that consciousness, mind or soul (psyche) is a universal feature of all things, and the primordial feature from which all others are derived. Panpsychists see themselves as minds in a world of minds.

What has that got to do with split-brain patients? Panpsychism is nonsense, irrespective of relevance to split brains (which was someone-else's idea, BTW, not mine).

How can one claim that panpsychism is false because splitting/merging of minds is impossible, when split-brain patients are examples of the splitting/merging of minds?

Like I said before, the falseness of panpsychism has nothing to do with split brains, because it is meant to apply to all of us, or none.

pl0bs wrote:

Animavore wrote:

pl0bs wrote:Human C is complex, primitive C is less complex.

How can one C be more "complex" than another? What makes one C more complex than another? Its structure? Its thicker array of interacting parts? Its schematics?

Its quite amazing, but humans have brains, and they differ from brains of other animals.

And what does the complexity of brains have to do with compexity of minds?

WTF is complex C anyway? Is it something to do with cognition / intelligence? Exactly what is C's role in that? How does qualia experience aid intelligence?

I'm still waiting for you to explain how simple consciousnesses can possibly merge into 'complex' consciousness of a different entity?

pl0bs wrote:Why do you think atoms are conscious?

Of course I think no such thing. Stop misrepresenting me.

I am trying to work out WTF you are on about. Not easy, since you seem unable to explain it.

You say 'complex C developed from simple C'
You suggest that Simple C must always have been around, somehow.
So, before the first atoms formed you must think there was simple C around. Was it in any way linked to the matter?
As quantum particles coalesced into atoms, molecules, stars, dust, comets, planets etc what do you think your 'simple C' was doing?

GrahamH wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

Animavore wrote:

pl0bs wrote:Human C is complex, primitive C is less complex.

How can one C be more "complex" than another? What makes one C more complex than another? Its structure? Its thicker array of interacting parts? Its schematics?

Its quite amazing, but humans have brains, and they differ from brains of other animals.

And what does the complexity of brains have to do with compexity of minds?

Its quite amazing, but mind and brain interact.

WTF is complex C anyway? Is it something to do with cognition / intelligence? Exactly what is C's role in that? How does qualia experience aid intelligence?

Having different experiences (intelligence, cognition, thoughts, etc., are experiences too). Simple examples: greyscale vision VS color vision. Having vision at all (and hearing) compared to being blind and deaf.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how simple consciousnesses can possibly merge into 'complex' consciousness of a different entity?

Yet it happens with split-brain patients.

GrahamH wrote:

pl0bs wrote:Why do you think atoms are conscious?

Of course I think no such thing. Stop misrepresenting me.

I am trying to work out WTF you are on about. Not easy, since you seem unable to explain it.

You say 'complex C developed from simple C'
You suggest that Simple C must always have been around, somehow.
So, before the first atoms formed you must think there was simple C around. Was it in any way linked to the matter?
As quantum particles coalesced into atoms, molecules, stars, dust, comets, planets etc what do you think your 'simple C' was doing?

Depends. What was matter like before the big bang?

DavidMcC wrote:Like I said before, the falseness of panpsychism has nothing to do with split brains, because it is meant to apply to all of us, or none.

What is meant to apply to all/none of us?

Animavore wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

Animavore wrote:

pl0bs wrote:Human C is complex, primitive C is less complex.

How can one C be more "complex" than another? What makes one C more complex than another? Its structure? Its thicker array of interacting parts? Its schematics?

Its quite amazing, but humans have brains, and they differ from brains of other animals.

Yes. I know humans have brains, and those brains are rather complex, more complex than others. But I'm not talking about brains. I'm talking about that non-physical stuff you call 'C'.

Can you answer the questions posed?

You know when you just wake up, you may have this sleepy feeling and barely sense the difference between light and dark, you have (almost) no sense of self, you have no memories in mind, no fullblown 3D color vision of 150 different objects around you, etc. That is a simpler conscious state (because less experiences and less variety in them), then if you were completely awake. The ultimate simple conscious state may be a fully undifferentiated experience. The brain is like a prism that diffracts the simple state into the complex human one.

pl0bs wrote:

Animavore wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

Animavore wrote:

How can one C be more "complex" than another? What makes one C more complex than another? Its structure? Its thicker array of interacting parts? Its schematics?

Its quite amazing, but humans have brains, and they differ from brains of other animals.

Yes. I know humans have brains, and those brains are rather complex, more complex than others. But I'm not talking about brains. I'm talking about that non-physical stuff you call 'C'.

Can you answer the questions posed?

You know when you just wake up, you may have this sleepy feeling and barely sense the difference between light and dark, you have (almost) no sense of self, you have no memories in mind, no fullblown 3D color vision of 150 different objects around you, etc. That is a simpler conscious state (because less experiences and less variety in them), then if you were completely awake. The ultimate simple conscious state may be a fully undifferentiated experience. The brain is like a prism that diffracts the simple state into the complex human one.

How? I'm asking you how questions here and you are answering with just-so stories.

pl0bs wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:Like I said before, the falseness of panpsychism has nothing to do with split brains, because it is meant to apply to all of us, or none.

What is meant to apply to all/none of us?

Panpsychism. I repeat part of my the wiki quote:

...
In philosophy, panpsychism is the view that consciousness, mind or soul (psyche) is a universal feature of all things, and the primordial feature from which all others are derived. Panpsychists see themselves as minds in a world of minds.
...

DavidMcC wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:Like I said before, the falseness of panpsychism has nothing to do with split brains, because it is meant to apply to all of us, or none.

What is meant to apply to all/none of us?

Panpsychism. I repeat part of my the wiki quote:

...
In philosophy, panpsychism is the view that consciousness, mind or soul (psyche) is a universal feature of all things, and the primordial feature from which all others are derived. Panpsychists see themselves as minds in a world of minds.
...

When is something a "thing"? What sets the boundaries that seperates things?