Скачать или смотреть What is it like to be an atom? : Panexperientialism Critique

I present 10 reasons why I am not a panexperientialist. Some are more aesthetic, some are more logical. Either way I feel all the points deserve somewhat of a mention.

1) Leads to linguistic muddles - What is the difference between consciousness, experience, self-awareness? what is an atom conscious "of"? As long as propositions about consciousness are linguistic we should make our terminology as simple as we can but no simpler!

2) Does not distinguish between that which is 'self aware' and that which isn't. I did not mean to suggest that bacteria are conscious, but merely that they had autonomy which is necessary but not sufficient for what we would call consciousness.

3) Subjectivity can also be considered a narrative we adopt when trying to make sense of our conscious experience, rather than intrinsic property of the universe

4) Supposes "events" of conscious experience. This is philosophically bad reasoning for the reasons mentioned here:
www.scholarpedia.org/article/Multiple_drafts_model
www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/OldArchive/bbs.dennett.html


5) Creates difficulties such as the "binding problem" of all these conscious "events" in both time and "space"

6) Downplays neurological findings on the nature of consciousness. e.g. Perception, mirror neurons, neuro-chemicals, memory, temporal lobes etc.

7) Cannot explain why cosmological zombies "think" they are conscious

8) Claims to solve the problem of dualism but merely accepts "two" properties of the universe which are irreducible.

9) Does not satisfy Hume's criteria of having an effect (not even the onphene accounts for this)

10) Does not answer the hard problem - "Experience" is both the problem AND the solution.