This kind of retort is a rookie error in the field of philosophy of mind. It clings too closely to notions of 1) self-awareness as an essential component of awareness per se (it's not) and 2) awareness as an essential component of experience per se (it's not).
Edit: I was referring to the link, not the top-level comment. It reads like an attempt at rebuttal from someone relatively unfamiliar with the field writ large.
This kind of retort is a rookie error in the field of comedy. It clings too closely to notions like 1) there's no place for humor in a serious discussion (there is) and 2) you're smarter than everyone else (you're not)
Yeah my retort about the cricket bat came from someone with a postgrad in philosophy from a top British University. I reckon Wittgenstein would have been tickled by it.
Plus with contemporary metaphysical interest in panpsychism, then "what is it like to be a cricket bat?" isn't even a moot question.
If the link is satire, it's indeed quite opaque. For panpsychists it is a legitimate question that, if explored, helps clarify the levels of awareness and agency that occur in different objects vis a vis conscious experience.
This kind of retort is a rookie error in the field of philosophy of mind. It clings too closely to notions of 1) self-awareness as an essential component of awareness per se (it's not) and 2) awareness as an essential component of experience per se (it's not).
Edit: I was referring to the link, not the top-level comment. It reads like an attempt at rebuttal from someone relatively unfamiliar with the field writ large.
This kind of retort is a rookie error in the field of comedy. It clings too closely to notions like 1) there's no place for humor in a serious discussion (there is) and 2) you're smarter than everyone else (you're not)
Yeah my retort about the cricket bat came from someone with a postgrad in philosophy from a top British University. I reckon Wittgenstein would have been tickled by it.
Plus with contemporary metaphysical interest in panpsychism, then "what is it like to be a cricket bat?" isn't even a moot question.
I was referring to the link, not the top-level comment
The link was posted as an earlier example of the comment it was replying to.
If the link is satire, it's indeed quite opaque. For panpsychists it is a legitimate question that, if explored, helps clarify the levels of awareness and agency that occur in different objects vis a vis conscious experience.
1 reply →