Maybe you could tell me what specific criticism you have rather than quoting a wikipedia article.
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 7:50 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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]> 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.
