On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 8:41:18 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 26 Apr 2019, at 22:25, [email protected] <javascript:> 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] 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
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>
>
Of
"matter is dreamed"
or "matter [*the only basic substance**] possesses psychical
properties"
the second seems more like science.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism#Physicalism_and_materialism
@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].
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.
