/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14597740
Why hello again. I still enjoy your humor, sadly it does not reduce the mental pain of this process.
>>14597753
>i mean, your whole spiel is disproven by the fact that you can think about thinking
. . . ? Because . . . ?
>>14597763
>But it is itself not physical, I would say.
It is physical the same way shadows are. Just because we can describe some property that arises from a combination of things does not mean the thing is separable. So, too, with consciousness.

So to me, saying "Yes but qualia is different" just elicits... "HOW?" People can assert this eternally, asserting it isn't a demonstration. By all accounts and all the evidence it is just emergent, same as all the other emergent things mentioned. And so we forever have this issue where people say "Yes but the shadow" and I have to keep repeating "You can't HAVE that shadow without the thing to cast it".