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.
