I should add that the cybernetic description of a system is entirely functional, but the emphasis is on the holistic perspective. Functionalism tends to be reductive, but the consciousness identified with a given cybernetic description is the system as a whole. That's why replacing a neuron with an artificial replacement does not change the consciousness.
On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 9:30 AM Terren Suydam <terren.suy...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 <cloudver...@gmail.com> 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 <cloud...@gmail.com> 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 <cloud...@gmail.com> 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 <cloud...@gmail.com> 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 <cloud...@gmail.com> 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 <cloud...@gmail.com> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
