4 ms·

Because it doesn't explain my experience. You can still be a materialist and allow for consciousness via emergence, but that is not quite the argument you are

• platz 7y ago
  If if emergence is right, you should be not so confident about it because it is an extremely delicate position with also a lot of handwavimg and question marks
• ajuc 7y ago
  I'm pretty sure that's the argument I'm making? 1. consciousness isn't fundamental, it's a consequence of normal physics 2. because it's not fundamental the definitions will always be arbitrary, just like with any other emergent phenomena (when does fog stop and rain start? At which height does atmosphere end? What is a planet)? All just labels and arbitrary thresholds slapped on some consequences of laws of physics. > it is an extremely delicate position with also a lot of handwavimg and question marks At least i'm not making untestable assumptions. If we can make a perfect copy of a brain and it doesn't work then I'm wrong. I prefer my theories to be delicate - that means they can be disproven. The alternative is "because magic".