and panpsychism is a terrible idea why, exactly? because it upends your preference for scientific materialism?
-
-
Replying to @ThouArtThat @MichaelPayton67
I explained why already. several times, in multiple posts. I doubt a Twitter reminder is going to convince you. btw, it's scientific materialism that allows you to tweet...
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
@mpigliucci I've appreciated the subtlety of your insights on platforms like@MeaningLifeTV. But your espousing of crude forms of scientific materialism to 'explain' consciousness is quite off-putting.2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @cognazor @mpigliucci and
Maybe you don't want to debate someone like
@BernardoKastrup (although I think you should). Okay, then why not have a public discussion about this with@evantthompson or even Francis Nagel?1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @cognazor @mpigliucci and
That would be great! Thompson isn’t a panpsychist, but he does admit that panpsychism is more coherent than scientific materialism.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @ThouArtThat @mpigliucci and
Right! I think Thompson's neurophenomenological approach to consciousnesses is less 'scary' than panpsychism or idealism, but it also isn't scientific materialism. It takes phenomenology and phenomenologists seriously.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @cognazor @mpigliucci and
Last I heard from Evan he was quite comfortable with neutral monism, but he seems to me to be sliding closer to panpsychism all the time. Whitehead’s process-relational variety seems to me to be provide the best ontological underbelly for the enactive paradigm.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @ThouArtThat @cognazor and
Here are some thoughts of mine on panpsychism from about a year ago. Still need to do more work on this, but this may give you a sense of the trajectory. https://vums-web.villanova.edu/Mediasite/Play/9df46af5440f49bcb549c324bb61fb711d …
2 replies 2 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @evantthompson @cognazor and
Thanks, Evan. I agree (of course!) that enactivism and panpsychism are compatible. I go a bit further & argue that Whitehead’s process-relational version is a natural extension into ontology of what enactivism says about biological systems...
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @ThouArtThat @evantthompson and
I’d also add, in response to your conclusion regarding “intrinsic properties,” that Whitehead’s relational approach distinguishes him from Strawson et al’s approach. He is very much aligned with your own Madhyamika approach where phenomenal experience is intrinsically relational.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.