(January 11, 2021 at 12:33 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: You can assume that whenever I refer to panpsychism I am not referring to any position which could be validly characterized as "not true panpsychism". It is useful to allow panpsychism to be itself, and something like but not true panspchism to be another thing - just as it would be useful to let consciousness be itself, and to let something like but not true consciousness to be another thing.
I would suggest, again, that with respect to your view of panpsychism not being true panpsychism, it is because you have included a large amount of emergentist content - some of which makes contradictory claims to true panpsychism.
Just as you can assume that when I'm discussing illusionism, I am discussing true illusionism, not illusionism where a trick produces the genuine article. A realist/illusionist synthesis.
We don't have to argue about everything.
