Lexicon of Arguments

 

I 68
Consciousness/Supervenience/McGinnVsSearle: conscious states do not allow an emergence theoretical explanation using mereological terms. We are unable, to trace back pain to underlying neural entities.
>Consciousness, cf. >Mereology, >Explanation.
In contrast to that, it is quite possible to explain the higher level properties of liquids in this way. ((s) Because all levels are easily available to us.)
I 69
States of consciousness are therefore not to be explored according to CAlM (combinatorial atomism with lawlike mappings). We can probably grasp higher order brain functions of their constituents, but if we start from the consciousness, this explanation fails.
Therefore, we do not have a model for a possible emergence relation. We do not see an obvious consequence relation. (> Supervenience/McGinn).
I 98
I/McGinn: is subject to a kind of physically induced consequence relation: are two bodies physically identical, and if one of them is a person, the other one must be a person, too.
Because in terms of person-likeness there can be no difference, which would not be based on a physical difference.
>I,Ego,Self, >Mind body problem.