> On 26 Apr 2019, at 22:25, [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 2:04:31 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote: >> Consciousness. Red is red. >> >> On Friday, 26 April 2019 10:03:26 UTC+3, [email protected] <> wrote: >> >> What specific ontological entity or entities of any science in 2019 does one >> claim as final - i.e., that ontology is the "true" one? > > > On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 11:25:15 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 26 Apr 2019, at 10:09, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: >> >> That is a good point. >> >> And that is the basic framework of Strawsonian panpsychism: >> >> Consciousness Isn’t a Mystery. It’s Matter. >> - >> https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/16/opinion/consciousness-isnt-a-mystery-its-matter.html >> >> <https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/16/opinion/consciousness-isnt-a-mystery-its-matter.html> > > Yes, the believer in Ontological Matter can get that crazy. When they don’t > eliminate consciousness, they identify it with matter, but then I have no > more any idea what they mean by consciousness, nor matter. It like saying > that apple are oranges, or that dogs are cats, or that music are black spot. > > To be sure, I have not read the text in the link, but I doubt it could > clarify anything like that. Matter and consciousness are typically very > different things. Consciousness is ascribed to person, matter is ascribed to > their (local) bodies. Both exist phenomenologically, with digital mechanism, > but one is far more general than the other, and once (consciousness) is > responsible from creating, in some sense, the other (matter). > > Consciousness needs only small numbers, matter needs the full invariance of > consciousness on all “similar enough” computations, and use infinities > (phenomenologically, as the ontology has not infinities). Matter obeys to the > laws of physics, but consciousness obeys to the laws of mind (the laws of > Boole and the laws of Boolos, as I sum up sometimes, that is classical logic > + the laws of self-reference). > > Bruno > > > Matter - in the panpsychist view - obeys "the laws of physics", but those > "laws" are are an incomplete theory of matter. > > There is a physical and psychical aspect to any complete theory of matter - > in the panpsychist view. > > There may be an immaterialist science, and the pro-"matter" people may have > some 'splainin' to do, but in the panpsychist context, matter is both > physical and psychical.
The problem with panpsychism, is in “pan”, not in psychisme. Then I have no clue what it could mean that matter is psychical. With mechanism, matter is dreamed, never experienced. There is no matter per se.It cannot be psychical, because it cannot be, at all. Bruno > > @philipthrift > <https://twitter.com/philipthrift> > > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
