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.
