Surprising views I didn't hold before studying philosophy:
Subatomic particles likely have experiences (or, at least, involve experientiality)
Some sort of (utilitarian) consequentialism might be true.
Killing animals is (mostly) not justifiable.
@lagenost I don't know that paper, or this area very well. I'm prepared to be convinced. I think that my main worry at the moment is that I thought that we started with a property, being conscious, that, intuitively, not everything has. So it's odd to be told that everything has it. That everything has a property from which it might emerge doesn't seem controversial, but much less interesting.
@twsh Galen's point is that it would be unintelligible how experientiality could emerge from wholly non-experiential entities. Other known cases of emergence (such as solids emerging from liquids) aren't really analogous, because they can be rendered intelligible by way of objective language, whereas the emergence of _subjective_ experience cannot in principle be given a full explanation in objective terms. Or something like that...
Scholar Social is a microblogging platform for researchers, grad students, librarians, archivists, undergrads, academically inclined high schoolers, educators of all levels, journal editors, research assistants, professors, administrators—anyone involved in academia who is willing to engage with others respectfully.