Panpsychism is not as crazy as it sounds.

[Whateverist]

Good on you regardless Pickup for not wanting to rush to nothing-but conclusions. The worst sort of theists decide on the destination before they've ever begun to explore. I think the same is true for atheists.

Agreed. Even so I see no room for theism in my speculations though.

Nor do I but it wouldn't be hard for someone to slip god in here.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Agreed. Even so I see no room for theism in my speculations though.

Nor do I but it wouldn't be hard for someone to slip god in here.

And yet if your reason leads you there, I would hope you wouldn't dismiss it out of hand.

[tor]

Nor do I but it wouldn't be hard for someone to slip god in here.

And yet if your reason leads you there, I would hope you wouldn't dismiss it out of hand.

Does god exist?

[Whateverist]

And yet if your reason leads you there, I would hope you wouldn't dismiss it out of hand.

Does god exist?

Chad and I probably disagree on that but I think we agree there is room to reasonably do so.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Does god exist?

Chad and I probably disagree on that but I think we agree there is room to reasonably do so.

Only if there is a reasonable progression from the observable to the supernatural.

Islamics and Christians reach two different conclusions from the Kalam: Yaweh and Allah.

Why? It's the same argument.

Cultural indoctrination into belief that the wide set of characteristics and qualities of their specific God are included in the term "God," and the illusion this and other cultural peculiarities are "common sense" or "self evident," when to any outside observer they simply don't follow from the premises or the <God Exists> conclusion.

[Whateverist]

Well obviously I don't find it reasonable but someone operating under a different set of baseline assumptions obviously can. Meh. Not my problem.

[fr0d0]

Only if there is a reasonable progression from the observable to the supernatural.

Haha!



Only a complete dipshit would say such a thing

[Neo-Scholastic]

Either way, panpsychism is a reasonable approach to the mind-body problem. I see a lot of common ground between a materialistic approach and process theology. Maybe working both ends against the middle could yield good results. I see a need to develop a good topology and better metrics for qualitative phenomena. Those used for physical events and bodies seem I'll fitted to subjective experience.

[Hegel]

Panpsychism is not crazy -- it's only counter-intuitive. The more you think about it, the more it makes sense. For me it has become as natural idea as that of evolution, etc.

Heliocentrism, gravitation, relativity, etc -- all these ideas were "crazy" when they were new.

And perhaps reality IS a little crazy.

[Mr Greene]

Personally i'd say that 'consciousness' is effectively analogous to awareness.
As such we don't even need to invoke unconsciousness, merely point out that whilst we may be conscious of light in the visible wavelengths, exactly how conscious are we of infrared, radio, ultraviolet and gamma radiation?
We have evolved specific sensory receptors that enable us to detect specific stimuli and via the neural network respond to them.
Thus I conclude that the table is unaware and unconscious of any stimuli I might present.
Of course I can make this interesting;
In front of each us is a keyboard, under each key is a pressure sensor which when stimulated sends an electrical signal to a mass of chips and wiring resulting in a response to the stimuli of a letter appearing on the screen which is also in front of us.
Is the computer conscious? and if so to what extent?