3 ms·

In the same way a room becomes conscious the moment a person walks into it.

runeks 9y ago
A room and a person in it can be considered separate. But nothing in existence can be considered separate from the universe, since the universe is everything in existence. So, to use your example, a room with a conscious person in it, considered as one whole, is at the very least partially conscious, since the person in it is conscious. Whether the room itself is conscious we don't quite know. But this leads to the question: does the notion of "partially conscious" make sense?
- danielam 9y ago
  So, 1. a room and a person in it are separate 2. nothing is separate from the universe Therefore, there are two things that are not separate from the universe but separate from each other.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - runeks 9y ago
    Separation is a matter of perspective. A room with a person in it can be viewed as one whole, and saying that this room-person is only partially conscious is equivalent to saying that, because my teeth are not conscious and my teeth are part of me, I’m only partially conscious.
    - JackFr 9y ago
      > Separation is a matter of perspective. Indeed separation is matter of consciousness. If we believe that the universe is more or less a frothing foam of energetic particles, the only thing that differentiates my teeth from my gums and me from the room is my recognition and identification of them. There is matter with or with out me, but there is no room, no tooth, no me without my consciousness.
      - danielam 9y ago
        "[...] the universe is more or less a frothing foam of energetic particles [...]" "Particles" is plural, implying separation. It that, too, a "matter of consciousness"? Sounds a lot like "consciousness" is being used to do a lot of passing of the proverbial buck.
andrewla 9y ago
And how a body becomes non-conscious the moment the brain is removed.
mr_overalls 9y ago
I would argue that the room (or the space enclosed by it) _does_ become capable of satisfying certain definitions of consciousness.
johndoe489 9y ago
Here is a similar argument from Alan Watts illustrated by Matt Stone and Trey Parker https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA3NLyQNDBQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA3NLyQNDBQ Another way to look at it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEunth9YCgo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEunth9YCgo (You are the Big Bang)
mannykannot 9y ago
This appears to be extreme anti-reductionism: the determined refusal to acknowledge that a property of a compound entity could be wholly explained by part of it. Why does the presence of a person in a room make a difference, as opposed to any other relationship between the two things?

A room and a person in it can be considered separate. But nothing in existence can be considered separate from the universe, since the universe is everything in existence. So, to use your example, a room with a conscious person in it, considered as one whole, is at the very least partially conscious, since the person in it is conscious. Whether the room itself is conscious we don't quite know. But this leads to the question: does the notion of "partially conscious" make sense?

danielam 9y ago
So, 1. a room and a person in it are separate 2. nothing is separate from the universe Therefore, there are two things that are not separate from the universe but separate from each other.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- runeks 9y ago
  Separation is a matter of perspective. A room with a person in it can be viewed as one whole, and saying that this room-person is only partially conscious is equivalent to saying that, because my teeth are not conscious and my teeth are part of me, I’m only partially conscious.
  - JackFr 9y ago
    > Separation is a matter of perspective. Indeed separation is matter of consciousness. If we believe that the universe is more or less a frothing foam of energetic particles, the only thing that differentiates my teeth from my gums and me from the room is my recognition and identification of them. There is matter with or with out me, but there is no room, no tooth, no me without my consciousness.
    - danielam 9y ago
      "[...] the universe is more or less a frothing foam of energetic particles [...]" "Particles" is plural, implying separation. It that, too, a "matter of consciousness"? Sounds a lot like "consciousness" is being used to do a lot of passing of the proverbial buck.

andrewla 9y ago

And how a body becomes non-conscious the moment the brain is removed.

mr_overalls 9y ago

I would argue that the room (or the space enclosed by it) _does_ become capable of satisfying certain definitions of consciousness.

johndoe489 9y ago

Here is a similar argument from Alan Watts illustrated by Matt Stone and Trey Parker https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA3NLyQNDBQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA3NLyQNDBQ Another way to look at it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEunth9YCgo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEunth9YCgo (You are the Big Bang)

mannykannot 9y ago

This appears to be extreme anti-reductionism: the determined refusal to acknowledge that a property of a compound entity could be wholly explained by part of it. Why does the presence of a person in a room make a difference, as opposed to any other relationship between the two things?