On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 2:13:15 AM UTC-5, telmo wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019, at 21:08, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > > > On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 8:41:18 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 26 Apr 2019, at 22:25, [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] 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. > > > Yes, especially if you wear a white coat and hold a test tube with some > bubbling green liquid while saying it. > > Telmo. > > > * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism#Physicalism_and_materialism > > @philipthrift > > > In the lab of "Ex Machina"?
https://www.dvdizzy.com/images/e/exmachina-05.jpg - pt -- 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.
