Then you're missing the point of the alternative I've been offering. It's not about the *matter itself*, it's about the cybernetic dynamics implemented in the matter. So I would predict that you could replace your brain neuron by neuron with functional equivalents and your consciousness wouldn't change, so long as the cybernetics were unchanged.
On Fri, May 3, 2019, 6:08 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]> 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. > -- 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.
