Though they are not observed or evidenced in all matter, like we see flight an emergent property of the evolution of birds, this does not mean these fundamental properties are present in rocks, which likely is why we don’t see them flying. Likewise the objective evidence supports human consciousness as an emergent property of our evolved brains, and rocks don’t have evolved brains, which is likely why we don’t see them exhibit consciousness.
Great, but there is no objective evidence that qualia is an emergent property of all matter. We can only objectively verify it where there is consciousness, and this only where the “fundamental properties” have evolved to produce it, like the human brain.
But not in all matter see, again that’s the unevidenced bit we talking about.
It seems you’re finally at the bottom of your empty bag, but haven’t the integrity to admit it, given the dishonest way you got there a more apt sketch would be this one under the circumstances.
Quote function please, it’s dishonest to misrepresent your assertions as something someone else said.
It is though very telling that rather than offer cogent sound answers to the objections @Calilasseia offered, you resort to dishonest caricaturing.
There is no evidence to support panpsychism, it is both unfalsifiable and untestable, and it has no explanatory powers. Your desperation to pursue the same claim over and over again won’t change any of this.
“One criticism of panpsychism is that it cannot be empirically tested.[9] A corollary of this criticism is that panpsychism has no predictive power. Tononi and Koch write: “Besides claiming that matter and mind are one thing, [panpsychism] has little constructive to say and offers no positive laws explaining how the mind is organized and works”.”
…and this…
“John Searle has alleged that panpsychism’s unfalsifiability goes deeper than run-of-the-mill untestability: it is unfalsifiable because “It does not get up to the level of being false. It is strictly speaking meaningless because no clear notion has been given to the claim”.[68] The need for coherence and clarification is accepted by David Skrbina, a proponent of panpsychism.”
…and this…
Combination problem
“The combination problem (which is related to the binding problem) can be traced to William James,[11] but was given its present name by William Seager in 1995.[112][11] The problem arises from the tension between the seemingly irreducible nature of consciousness and its ubiquity. If consciousness is ubiquitous, then in panpsychism, every atom (or every bit, depending on the version of panpsychism) has a minimal level of it. How then, as Keith Frankish puts it, do these “tiny consciousnesses combine” to create larger conscious experiences such as “the twinge of pain” he feels in his knee?[113] This objection has garnered significant attention,[11][113][1] and many have attempted to answer it.[96][114] None of the proposed answers has gained widespread acceptance.[11]”
So what’s your excuse? Sauce for the goose etc etc…
Your post about panpsychism is post 275, the one you’re quoting from @Calilasseia is post 280, we were discussing panpsychism, as I pointed out it is unevidenced and untestable and unfalsifiable in post 272, in response to @Cognostic’s post about remote viewing, and was comparing them in that context. Qualia was introduced by you in a later response, and @Calilasseia responded to that.
Here is my post 272, and your response…
Do start using the link icon to check, as I tire of doing all the heavy lifting to keep you on track.
I saw that you posted it many times, and I suspect it may have hurt you. I want to make it clear that it’s not my intention to hurt anyone.
While I disagree with what you’re saying, I will concede because we won’t come to an agreement, and I don’t want to keep discussing mere ‘context’ issues.
Oh you can relax, I’m far more thick skinned that people realise I think. It just caught my sense of irony that’s all.
Ok, now might a great time for you tell us what you think the most compelling reason you have to believe a deity exists, and which deity. Since that’s the thread topic.
Oh, I don’t think that believing in God has much to do with rational arguments. I can find some arguments, but they certainly aren’t what will make it meaningful for anyone.
Believing in God, for me, is something you have to believe in first, and then you can see. It’s more of a way of thinking. It’s like jumping into a pool or accepting the risks of life—an inevitable step required to truly start living.
But I don’t think there’s anything I can say that you would find interesting.
Who’s forgetting what now? Those are just 7 posts apart, and you tried to derail the discussion with 3 irrelevant displays of histrionics.
