Skip to main content
Philosophy

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

10
  • 1
    Strawson may have convinced himself, and may have convinced others. By definition he has not convinced the physicalists. Physicalism certainly does not entail a form of panpsychism; it simply asserts that, despite your claim, intelligence can be an emergent phenomenon. Please don't assert what others must believe; ask them instead. Commented Mar 11, 2025 at 21:08
  • 1
    We agree that physicalism does not entail determinism. Not everyone grants that point, so thank you. Commented Mar 11, 2025 at 21:12
  • 1
    FWIW, I've downloaded the Strawson document and will try to get to it. Hopefully it's a bit more readable than some philosophical essays. Commented Mar 12, 2025 at 0:43
  • 1
    @keshlam - The Chalmers article is a very good read too (if you haven't already read it). Chalmers in a way agrees with you (and me). He argues for a kind of physicalist dualism where "consciousness" (and thus qualia) is accepted as fundamental "given", unreducible to purely physical processes, but correlated to those in systematic ways. So in a way that fully admits to the circularity - while at the same time trying to make it palatable. Commented Mar 12, 2025 at 1:06
  • 1
    @mudskipper: Enqueued. I am skeptical about "unreduceable" versus "unreduced" -- though I suspect it's a somewhat chaotic and adaptive system and hence resistant to full reduction. We may have to settle for general principles. Which wouldn't bother me, but would probably not satisfy those who still believe we can find and recognize Truth with a capital T. Commented Mar 12, 2025 at 1:23