I don't believe in the "*functional* equivalence" principle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_(philosophy_of_mind) as it does not capture the nature of what is needed for consciousness (as many critics - some listed there - have pointed out). If I had to pick something vs. "cybernetic dynamics" it would be "neurochemical dynamics". That seems closer to me. @philipthrift On Friday, May 3, 2019 at 5:31:56 PM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote: > > 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] <javascript:>> 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.
