Well we know *some* matter has a psychical aspect: *human brains*. Unless one is a consciousness denier. - https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/13/the-consciousness-deniers/
@philipthrift On Friday, May 3, 2019 at 4:58:04 PM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote: > > Panpsychism of any flavor that identifies matter with a psychic aspect is > subject to the problems I described earlier. > > It never occurred to me to google something like "theoretical psychology" > <https://www.google.com/search?q=theoretical+psychology> but there's a > lot there. How much of it is interesting, I don't know. > > I think as we flesh out the connectome, theoretical psychology will take > on more legitimacy and importance. > > > On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 5:16 PM <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > >> >> 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]> 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.
