No, since firstly that doesn’t address your false dichotomy fallacy at all. As I explained it’s not a choice between accepting panpsychism, or magical thinking, as you have repeatedly claimed, and as the paper you cited claimed.
There is also no evidence for panpsychism, so your new assertion here is a false equivalence fallacy. I am not interpreting anything, either there is objective evidence or there is not,
Lastly, and I can’t stress this enough, as I started with it. it is not a choice between panpsychism and consciousness as an emergent property of the brain, since I would not entertain any idea without any objective evidence to support it. panpsychism is not a viable choice. So even were science to discover tomorrow that consciousness could not be an emergent property of the brain, it would not rationally evidence panpsychism.
This is the same false dichotomy creationists use, when they try to decry evolution, as if it is solely a choice between species evolution and supernatural magic from an archaic creation myth.
If there are fundamental properties that produce qualia, these properties must be present in all atoms. This is why I suggest that Panpsychism could also be understood as a logical consequence of emergent properties.
All you’ve done is make an unevidenced assertion (emboldened), about the very thing you’re arguing for, it’s begging the question, so the result is a circular reasoning fallacy, where you assume your conclusion in your opening premise?
The properties need not be fundamental to all atoms, a vastly complex and lengthy process like evolution might have produced the properties in evolved brains, for example. Either way, you don’t get to just assert your conclusion in your premise, that fallacious.
You already know what I’m going to say: H₂O is not inherently wet. Wetness arises from the interactions between the electromagnetic fields of atomic nuclei, which determine how water particles interacts with other particles. Therefore, wetness is a product of electromagnetic forces, which, in turn, stem from the charges of particles. Ultimately, wetness can be traced back to the properties of these charged particles.
Now, if we apply the same reasoning to qualia, we find that there is no known fundamental property that we can combine to explain the emergence of qualia.
These questions are simple…what’s your intended point?
Well no not fine, you claimed it followed logically, but your syllogism was not sound, not logical, this is a pretty important fact.
That was just an example of why you can’t rationally assume they are fundamental to everything. We already admit that we don’t fully understand how these properties emerged, but this is not relevant of course, since it is also fallacious to claim something is true just because we lack an alternative explanation or evidence.
True, and of course that includes panpsychism. One of the main objections is that it has no explanatory powers as to how consciousness emerges, even if one assumes qualia is present in everything, and that remains an unevidenced assumption. Though the problems don’t stop there of course, since the idea is also unfalsifiable and untestable. There is a reason this idea, which is a very old one, fell out of favour in the modern scientific era.
Yes, of course. I understand that unless someone finds a way to demonstrate how “qualia” can produce an effect on material reality, it will be very difficult to prove anything about it. I know that panpsychism is not the final word on the matter.
Well it’s an idea that has had millennia, and has not advanced our understanding at all, and it remains not just unevidenced, but unfalsifiable, this means it also remains untestable, and it offers no predictions that might help to scientifically verify it. There appears no basis for any scientific research into panpsychism.
I dismiss them on the basis that I don’t consider all biblical claims to be true. The essence of the message of Christ is the important thing. More important than that is his divinity and personage - all of which is accessible to the mind of any human being who practices compassion.
I did. I showed you how radically he described that not only would he fulfill the old law but also bring about a new law - one where calling your brother a fool meant threat of hell fire. The meaning is symbolic. It is a symbol of the lengths to which a Christian must go when exercising love.
All that stoning shit and what not … how about “let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
You have to be creative and with the Bible to get anything constructive out of it. And no, I don’t take it literally. Why would I do that?
Probably why he volunteered to be executed on a cross.
Synatheisa. Look it up. It’s real.
Kay. Is English your first language Sheldon. Use English.
Expand on your silly fallacies so that we can actually have a discussion. Here is my objection.
To be a Christian you must practice compassion. If you fail at that, you must seek forgiveness and make more efforts to practice compassion. This is a basic definition of a Christian. There are other criteria. Claiming to be a Christian does not a Christian make.
Since various Nazis clearly had no conscience and did nothing to practice life affirming values it is plainly absurd to qualify them as Christians because they merely claimed to be a Christian or claimed it as their religion.
Okay. I was wrong. How about I blow you too?
Love? Compassion?
You are a robot made of sperm.
No. But there are clear indicators that one is certainly not a true Christian. A million sub groups exist. The basic requirement is a belief in Christ based on an understanding of compassion.
The moment you start killing people and making a practice out of killing people you absolve your self of the title. I don’t care how many subgroups can be created, you can’t be a career murderer and expect to be a believer in Christ as well.
And the only true Christians in Germany at the time where the Jehovas Witnesses who refused to partake in the war and were persecuted for this.
Like other movements, Christianity has been in ideological decline since Constantine politicized it.
But there are still examples of people who rediscover the true principles of Christ and belief in him (ie. compassion). Nazi Germany is not an example of a people who were in touch with Christ.
