On 02 Sep 2012, at 13:17, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com
> wrote:
That implies that T-cells need a feeling to guide them not to kill
friendly
cells. That H2O needs a feeling to guide it not to dissolve non-polar
molecules. If you believe in functionalism, then all feeling is a
metaphysical epiphenomenon. I think the opposite makes more sense -
everything is feeling, function is the result of sense, not the
other way
around. T-cells do feel. Molecules do feel. How could it be any
other way?
Panpsychism is not inconsistent with functionalism. David Chalmers is
a functionalist and panpsychist.
To use this as argument, you have to convince us that David Chalmers
is consistent.
I already provide evidence that he is not.
In case he is consistent, then, as a human being having a complexity
close to you and me, you cannot prove consistently that he is
consistent.
You are using an inconsistent argument per authority here.
Also, what is "pan" in panpsychism?
His physicalist computationalism is already inconsistent with its own
functionalism.
Like its dualist interpretation of Everett was inconsistent with
Everett monistic motivation to abandon the collapse. Not sure he still
defend that view though.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
