3 ms·
This is true. Note words "reasonable" & "assume" in my comment. [Also, identity of "composition", and "nature", not molecular identity.] (I remember having thi
by eternalban 4y ago
This is true. Note words "reasonable" & "assume" in my comment. [Also, identity of "composition", and "nature", not molecular identity.]
(I remember having this conversation back in college; there were the three of us, a friend and his girlfriend. He was saying something along those lines, claiming us to be in his imagination. I told him I could prove he is wrong to his girlfriend, but alas he wouldn't be around to know.)
- rhn_mk1 4y agoIdentity of composition implies molecular identity :) Or some other kind of physical identity, if you happen to be made of something other than molecules (plasma?). The question of identity of nature is more interesting, but it's also hard to define. To address your other point, I don't think it's the flip side of the coin: a coin has two sides, and similarity is a continuum. Rejecting consciousness to "dissimilar" things would require that we can split "similarity" and "dissimilarity" and compare which dominates for a particular subject. I think it's more reasonable to see similarity as a continuum, and extend the assumption of - make it consciousness - to less and less similar subjects... And now we arrived at panpsychism.