Just because something is defined on a higher layer of abstraction doesn’t mean that there is “no such thing”, any more than there is “no such thing as an apple” just because physics doesn’t draw object boundaries. Humans draw object boundaries, and in the HPVerse, magic listens to humans. I think the strongest thing you can say is “There is no such thing in reductionist physics as a consciousness”, which is not the same as “consciousness doesn’t exist” even in our universe, and doubly so in Harry’s where magic gives concepts direct relevance.
I think you’re missing my point. I’m not saying “reductionism prevents consciousness from existing”. I’m saying that:
If consciousness in the Potterverse is the same sort of thing as consciousness in our universe (i.e. a way of describing electrical signals in the brain, and not a magical ineffable substance like a soul)
and
the differences between humans and animals in the Potterverse are same or similar to those in our universe
then
it is impossible for humans in the Potterverse to have consciousness while animals lack it
and
it is impossible to end death for humans but not animals using consciousness as the criterion for distinguishing between the two.
My original reference to reductionism was just to eliminate the possibility of Potterverse consciousness being a magical ineffable substance (in which case this argument would not apply).
I think this comes down to a sloppy definition of consciousness, where what parent possibly meant was self awareness plus symbolic comprehension of death.
Just because something is defined on a higher layer of abstraction doesn’t mean that there is “no such thing”, any more than there is “no such thing as an apple” just because physics doesn’t draw object boundaries. Humans draw object boundaries, and in the HPVerse, magic listens to humans. I think the strongest thing you can say is “There is no such thing in reductionist physics as a consciousness”, which is not the same as “consciousness doesn’t exist” even in our universe, and doubly so in Harry’s where magic gives concepts direct relevance.
I think you’re missing my point. I’m not saying “reductionism prevents consciousness from existing”. I’m saying that:
If consciousness in the Potterverse is the same sort of thing as consciousness in our universe (i.e. a way of describing electrical signals in the brain, and not a magical ineffable substance like a soul)
and
the differences between humans and animals in the Potterverse are same or similar to those in our universe
then
it is impossible for humans in the Potterverse to have consciousness while animals lack it
and
it is impossible to end death for humans but not animals using consciousness as the criterion for distinguishing between the two.
My original reference to reductionism was just to eliminate the possibility of Potterverse consciousness being a magical ineffable substance (in which case this argument would not apply).
I think this comes down to a sloppy definition of consciousness, where what parent possibly meant was self awareness plus symbolic comprehension of death.
Which is clearly pertinent due to how Patronus works. Good catch.