I must assume you have already studied (hopefully over many years) in philosophy the difference between
*functionalism*: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/functionalism/ and *identity theory*: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-identity/ A short way of expressing identity theory over functionalism is *A simulation is not a synthesis.* *Experiential materialism* is a variant of identity theory in which • psychical properties, as well as physical ones, are attributed to matter, which is the only basic substance so that • the material composition of the brain has both physical and psychical aspects. @philipthrift On Saturday, May 4, 2019 at 7:38:46 AM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote: > > 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] <javascript:>> 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.
