[Wittrs] Re: Variations in the Idea of Consciousness
- From: "jrstern" <jrstern@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 04:48:01 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "iro3isdx" <xznwrjnk-evca@...> wrote:
>
> Our intuition is that particles are not aware, and thus that an
> assemblage of particles is not aware.
Isn't this the negative of the fallacy of composition?
One block is not a pair, therefore two blocks cannot be a pair?
I do not mean to trigger a discussion of emergence, but do we
really need emergence to uncover all the mysteries of pair-ness?
> Insisting on ascribing
> awareness to an assembly of particles feeds mysticism. I don't
> think we have the same sort of intuition about processes, so I
> think that the idea of processes experiencing is less of a
> mystery.
I have found the intuition can be retrained.
Anyway I was taught somewhere in grade school, that intuition is
not a valid argument, most especially in scientific matters.
My intuition tells me an assembly of particles is the only thing
that there is, that could even possibly become aware - insofar as
there is any "awareness" for anything to become. But I doubt if
my intution will convince you, unless accompanied by quite some
arguments.
Josh
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
