Philip Sutton wrote:
I agree with what I think Philip is saying here, but would state it in more abstract terms.Brad/Eugen/Ben,
Early living things/current simple-minded living things, we can conjecture didn't/don't have perceptions that can be described as qualia. Then somewhere along the line humans start describing perceptions that some of them describe as qualia. It seems that something has happened in between.
It may be useful to note that humans do many things in their daily lives, skillfully and effectively, without any apparent qualia. A common example is the one of driving some distance, but having no memory - no experience - of the trip. Likewise, an animal can be quite responsive and functional within its environment with awareness but not qualia (no self-awareness of the experience.)
And it's easy to see that an organism with a higher level of awareness - call it meta-awareness, self-awareness, or qualia - would possess an evolutionary advantage due its greater ability to model - but more importantly, predict - its environment including itself and its own possible actions.
Now, what I find more interesting, is to think of humans (hypothetically) as part of a larger organism having a form of awareness - sensing and regulatory feedback loops - at a higher level of organization than humans can effectively perceive or comprehend.
Does the previous scenario make any difference to the thinking of those who tend to value qualia and panpsychism as useful concepts? Does the larger organism have qualia? Where, or of what is it composed?
- Jef
-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
