this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2025
47 points (100.0% liked)

philosophy

20217 readers
2 users here now

Other philosophy communities have only interpreted the world in various ways. The point, however, is to change it. [ x ]

"I thunk it so I dunk it." - Descartes

Short Attention Span Reading Group: summary, list of previous discussions, schedule

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
thethirdgracchi@hexbear.net
MiraculousMM@hexbear.net
Leon_Grotsky@hexbear.net
47
What do you think of panpsychism/the hard problem of consciousness? (hexbear.net)
submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by itsPina@hexbear.net to c/philosophy@hexbear.net
241 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Personally I think it's silly as hell. Qualia is obviously a biological component of experience... Not some weird thing that science will never be able to put in to words.

I've been listening to a lot of psychology podcasts lately and for some reason people seem obsessed with the idea despite you needing to make the same logical leaps to believe it as any sort of mysticism... Maybe I am just tripping idk

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BountifulEggnog@hexbear.net 8 points 3 weeks ago

Since you want to pick apart my view and clearly do not agree, I am curious about yours. You seem to think there's more to a person then chemicals, what else do you think there is? What is missing?

You have it the wrong way around; you're the one asserting things beyond electricity and meat:

What really made me want to engage with you was this:

After all, you're just chemicals, no different than a rock or a river or a printer.

And it seems pretty obvious to me you disagree with this view, that you are saying it in a sarcastic or mocking way. You've done you're bit, I see that either my view is incomplete or I am not explaining myself properly. Maybe both, I am not a philosophy person. So could you please explain, even a hint, of what you think I'm missing so I can improve?