There is a whole spectrum of panpsychisms (plural) - from micropsychism to cosmophychism:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/ cf. https://www.iep.utm.edu/panpsych/ That is not a "real science" yet is its basic problem of course. But consciousness science in general really isn't yet either. One would think there would be a group of theoretical psychologists - there is theoretical physics, chemistry, and biology, but theoretical psychology is in a much weirder state - who would be involved. @philipthrift On Friday, May 3, 2019 at 3:48:40 PM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote: > > My question for panpsychists is similar to my question for Cosmin: what > does it buy you in terms of explanations or predictions? > > Just blanket-asserting that all matter is conscious doesn't tell me > anything about consciousness itself. For example, what would it mean for my > fingernails to be conscious? Does my fingernail consciousness factor in > somehow to my own experience of consciousness? If so, how? What about all > the other parts of my body, about individual cells? Does the bacteria > living in my body contribute its consciousness somehow? It quickly runs > aground on the same rocks that arguments about "soul" do - there's no > principled way to talk about it that elucidates relationships between > brains, bodies, and minds. Panpsychism does nothing to explain the effect > of drugs on consciousness, or brain damage. Like Cosmin's ideas, it's all > just post-hoc rationalization. Panpsychism is the philosophical equivalent > of throwing your hands up and saying "I dunno, I guess it's all conscious > somehow!" > > What I'm suggesting posits that consciousness arises from the cybernetic > organization of a system, that what the system experiences, as a whole, is > identified with the informational-dynamics captured by that organization. > This yields explanations for the character of a given system's > consciousness... something panpsychism cannot do. > > Terren > > On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 3:57 PM <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > >> >> I see the coin made (as the ones lying on my desk right now made of >> metal) of matter. >> >> The two sides of the coin (of matter) are *physical *and *psychical*: >> >> https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2019/01/22/matter-gets-psyched/ >> >> >> If ὕ – the first Greek letter for “hyle”, upsilon (υ) with diacritics >> dasia and oxia (U+1F55) – is used for the symbol of matter, φ (phi) for >> physical, + ψ (psi) for psychical, then >> >> >> ὕ = φ + ψ >> >> >> (i.e., the combination of *physical* and *psychical* properties is a >> more complete view of what matter is). The physical is the (quantitative) >> behavioral aspect of matter – the kind that is formulated in mathematical >> language in current physics, for example – whereas the psychical is the >> (qualitative) experiential aspect of matter, at various levels, from brains >> on down. There is no reason in principle for only φ to the considered by >> science and for ψ to be ignored by science. >> >> @philipthrift >> >> >> >> On Friday, May 3, 2019 at 2:10:05 PM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote: >>> >>> I see them as two sides of the same coin - as in, you don't get one >>> without the other. >>> >>> On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 3:00 PM <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> If "consciousness doesn't supervene on physical [or material] >>>> computation" then does that mean there is realm for (A) consciousness and >>>> one for (B) physical [or material] computation? >>>> >>>> Is A like some spirit or ghost that invades the domain of B? Or does B >>>> invade A? >>>> >>>> @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.
