What I'm suggesting draws on both functionalism and identity theory. It's functional in the sense that the constitutive aspect of cybernetics is entirely functional. There is nothing in a cybernetic description beyond the functional relationships between the parts of that system. It draws on identity theory in the sense that I'm claiming that consciousness *is* cybernetic dynamics. What I'm adding is the same move that panpsychism makes - that there is something it is like to be any cybernetic system, and this includes many more things than brains, and crucially, does not depend on a specific substrate.
On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 9:13 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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]> 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.
