you may have a good point there. I was just focusing on the way your example was sort of opposite of mine. I said there's no natural reason why we are conscious and you said we could build an automaton that would appear form the outside to be conscious. obviously related but not exactly the same. Although it might end up in the same place as my comment but starting from another perspective, which is what i like about your thinking.met wrote:Isn't that saying the same thing? Living organisms could function perfectly well as self-replicating stimulus/response machines without all that messy business of perceptions and consciousness. It's not necessary.... it's superfluous.that's not what I said. the idea that consciousness is below the surface s not relevant either. I said there's no reason why we are conscious, we don't have to be. Meaning, there's an explanatory gap, it can't be expalined away by brain chemistry. It's Charlmer's argument.
I like that. Is that what Derrida achieved too, with his "it's all just differance?" [/quote]Metacrock wrote:When one starts worrying about things like the one and the many, then we run into what I call The Heraclitus paradox.. That is Heraclitus thought there was all action and no stasis. But when viewed form a larger perspective his view of realty actually contained a larger stasis, that of constant motion which worked like a frame around a picture.
that's not really Derridian. Derrida even though he's not reductionist is atheist. he hated Christianity. So would not agree with my TS argument. My argument is also called "reverse Derrida." I'm saying he got part of it right but his solution is wrong. If you reverse his solution it's a god argument.