On 5/4/2019 6:30 AM, Terren Suydam 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.
So what is the function that makes a system "cybernetic" and is that
sufficient to make it conscious?
Brent
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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to
[email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[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.
