The cybernetic description of a system is a description of a system's relationships, both internally in terms of the system's organization - how its components relate to each other functionally, and externally in terms of a system's functional relationship to its environment. A cybernetic description explicitly leaves out the materiality of the components - it's only about the relations. Therefore cybernetics is exclusively about information - the way a system creates/updates information about its environment, and how that information is processed as a function of the system's organization as a whole.
What I'm saying is that for any system that has a cybernetic description (which can cover a very broad range of systems), there it is something it is like to be that system, which is to say a system that processes information in one form or another. A lot of this comes from the site Principia Cybernetica <http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/DEFAULT.html> which is a pretty expansive treatment of cybernetics. On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 2:55 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < [email protected]> wrote: > > > 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]> 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. > > > -- > 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.
