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.
