I am but with other posters at this point because I found something of interest. — schopenhauer1
What the hell is the point of the petty squabbling. Stop trying to be assholes or clever and state your case. — schopenhauer1
Always good to associate with peers. — tim wood
You last year? You're a junior now? A poem for you — tim wood
But there is an historic aspect of all this barely touched on. The ancient Greeks attributed such order as they found in nature to "mind." — tim wood
If you want to be a panpsychist, the best way to do so is to attack emergentism as hard as you can. If you can say that emergentism isn't true, and that consciousness is real, then you can say that consciousness is fundamental. — Pneumenon
What do you think philosophy is about? — bert1
You don't have to have one, but then you should be quiet, — bert1
You haven't done any philosophy here. Philosophy is about argument and rational justification for beliefs. — bert1
Wiki: Intelligence has been defined in many ways: the capacity for logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving. More generally, it can be described as the ability to perceive or infer information, and to retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment or context. — jgill
Sorry. I was flippant about atoms having minds. But a mind is something which has mental states and mental contents, no? Where, or rather how, do we draw the line between the environment and ourselves? — Zophie
Well, I gotta admit, I was sceptical. But with an argument like that, what more is there to say? I'm convinced. — Banno
before we assume atoms have minds? — Zophie
My only problem with panpsychism is that it's virtually indistinguishable from animism. — Zophie
Panpsychism isn't neutral monism. Russell had in mind a third ingredient in addition to mind and matter.
There's nothing special about neutral monism which is why it's neutral and unknowable. — Zophie
but it seems pretty clear that at rock bottom, there must be something that exists as a metaphysical necessity. — Michael Nelson
We weren't talking about language games, but games in general, and whether all games must contain some common essential feature. Wittgenstein rejects this idea, claiming that games share in a family of similar features, but without there being one essential feature that every game must contain. — Luke
Nevertheless, what about a game such as truth or dare. Is that a game? If so, what counts as successful and unsuccessful performance? — Luke
Catching the ball means winning the game? — Luke
But there is such a thing as universal good - consisting of the union set of all things to which the word "good" has been applied to. — TheMadFool
There is no common theme detectable in these three people and if Wittgenstein has the say then, good doesn't have a universally applicable meaning - its different for different people and has no fixed referent. — TheMadFool
We may (mis)understand. — TheMadFool
Which is another way of saying meaning (of words) is not in reference but elsewhere and that elsewhere for Wittgenstein is use but, my suspicion is that words are being misused and since Wittgenstein's theory (of language games) is predicated on words being used well, it follows that his theory needs some adjustment to say the least. — TheMadFool
That family resemblance exists in the word universe doesn't imply that words have no referents, that referential meaning is flawed and so forth. What it really does is reveal errors in word usage and the cumulative effect of such errors. — TheMadFool
For instance, continuing with Wittgenstein's water example, "water", first and foremost, refers to H2O. — TheMadFool
What should I read for Wittgenstein? — TheMadFool
Buddhism isn't a defined institution. Neither is Christianity really. Only a couple of Churches are actually institutions, the rest of them are all over the place. — h060tu