(August 30, 2026 at 8:58 pm)Angrboda Wrote:(August 30, 2026 at 8:46 pm)Jal Wrote: I am not getting your point here. You don't believe in differing degrees of self-awareness? Do you believe that plants are alive?
(A) Are plants as sentient as we are?
(B) Are plants the same as rocks in terms of sentiene?
You may disagree with my beliefs about sentience, but you haven't shown them illogical, implausible, or impossible. You just don't like my beliefs. But I'm not sure why you think that your dislike of my beliefs is relevant to this debate.
I'm pointing to a structural deficiency in the way you are applying the concept of consciousness. It means different things at different times. That's equivocation, and until it's fixed, your words aren't worth anything. It has nothing to do with whether I like your ideas or not. It has to do with a problem in trying to stretch the one word to all these different things. At the end of the day, the word doesn't mean anything in your mouth because you've applied it to things for which the only evidence that your claim is valid is your say so. Panpsychism is neither here nor there with me. I simply don't find it coherent for the reason stated. Nor do I find ipse dixit arguments that a rock has some properties in common with me toward which the label consciousness can be meaningfully applied persuasive. There's a reason such arguments are considered fallacious. And to repeat a complaint which has already been lodged, it isn't my job to show that your ideas are implausible or impossible. I have shown that they are illogical. And your responses to that have been enlightening.
Sorry, but postulating degrees of senstience is not equivocation. You may not LIKE that assumption, but you haven't shown it illogical.
