Ah yep. I can buy that too - it’s hard to know what really happens to consciousness when you sleep because we often, apparently, have experiences we’re unaware of, have no experience and have experiences we are aware of - bit of a strange rorschach(sp?).
This is hte least important part of that quote, to my mind.
I directly, explicitly responded to this in the post you are responding to. I’m unsure how to deal with someone not reading their interlocutor but continuing to respond?
The latter does not entail the former. And in fact, cannot. This is the wrong description, as far as I can tell.
It does not. The reductionist is not committed to reducing anything to nothing. All analyses of that kind will result in something brute, or fact-laded which is not inferred or contingent (well, to the best of human knowledge anyhow) unless there were some direct evidence for non-reductive reality. Which, so far, there doesn’t seem to be more than vague, rumour-like possibilities which tend to get whittled away as experiments continue.
Yes it is. I providd the PhilPapers survey which showed this (actually ,its possible i ended up not citing it. Here and here - if I didn’t. You’ll note several responses (such as physicalism-related ones) that indicate quuite clearly that reductionism is still favoured -perhaps not as obviously as was once hte case).
It literally does not conflict with reductionism until you claim strong emergence. If you’re doing so, be precise. In most forms, emergence is seen as an obvious result - you can see Jaegwon Kim treating this at great length in Physicalism or Something Near Enough (2005).
THis is a truly bizarre and wrong-headed response to a charge that you ought to be engaging with your interlocutors. You are clearly not reading posts fully, you refuse to engage in materials relevant to your interests and you refuse to answer direct questions which colour, in quite extreme ways, how you’re responding. You cannot hide behind some description of yourself. This is a public activity and you are plum not doing it.
Perfect example. This is an entirely run-of-the mill term in philosophy which is used here all the time. Because people here actually know what they’re talking about. Something as simple as a Google search would prevent you from saying things which betray such an intense lack of interest in the activity you are asking everyone to spend time on.
It might be. I am telling you that this is my view.
I explained why this is not hte case and you simply rejected it with absolutely no engagement with the argument made. Given that you do not know (and then assume you are right) what some of these words actually mean, it’s again, coming across as trolling.
Do you know what semantic “sense” is? This is a full response. If you can give it a sense, I can then see if there’s something to respond to. There’s no dismissal - It’s an observation about how you’re writing. I assume it’s not what you intend, whcih I why I continue to respond to you - in hopes you will adjust your writing to actually capture whatever you’re tyring to get across.
No. It’s his argument, and if you want it, you will go to him. That’s how these things work. Everyone else in this forum cites writers, and gives their positions. I’ve done exactly that for hte relevant parts of Parfit, including quotes, and you’re simply not engaging them. That is 100% on you my man.
This also, doesn’t make sense. I wont ask you to reword, because of something to come.
This is truly ridiculous. Parfit gives his position. If you want to argue with a ghost, go ahead. But you will not get anyone who has critical thinking skills to take seriously hte idea that Parfit didn’t understand his own emotional response to something he spent 14 years on.
This has become a pointless exercise. You are choosing not to engage, or are unable to engage, any substative points, you refuse to access sources and you’re making comments that amount to telling someone they’re wrong about what they feel.
I cannot spend more of my time on this. Take care.