On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 11:02:30 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 10 Sep 2019, at 21:28, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 12:09:19 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 8 Sep 2019, at 12:51, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 5:40:55 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> > On 7 Sep 2019, at 07:14, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On 9/6/2019 9:51 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: >>> >> >>> >> I would put "Horganism" another way. >>> >> >>> >> Science tells stories/theories, and some are successful in their >>> application. But we don't know if any of the stories are the final ones to >>> be told, or even close to being final. (They probably are not.) There is no >>> settled story of gravity yet, much less consciousness. One reads about a >>> new story of gravity in science news every week, it seems. >>> >> >>> >> David Chalmers' conclusion is ... >>> >> >>> >> "I think that the Hegelian [dialectical] argument gives good reason >>> to take both panpsychism and panprotopsychism very seriously. If we can >>> find a reasonable solution to the combination problem for either, this view >>> would immediately become the most promising solution to the mind–body >>> problem. So the combination problem deserves serious and sustained >>> attention." >>> >> - http://consc.net/papers/panpsychism.pdf >>> > >>> > Zero predictive power and it's not clear that it's consistent with the >>> rest of neurophysics. >>> >>> + zero explanation power at all, also. >>> >>> Bruno >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> But panpsychism more explanatory than consciousness from numbers. >> >> >> >> “Pan” is not well defined. The proposition "my cup of tea is conscious” >> is not well defined for me. >> >> What is the panpsychist theory of consciousness? If everything is >> conscious, “consciousness seems trivialised”. >> >> With the number, and their + and * laws, we can define the universal >> digital machine, and study what they can prove about themselves, including >> what they cannot prove, but still guess, and incompleteness makes the >> standard definition of the greeks making sense. The universal machine has >> already an interesting discourse about, not just his body, but its souls, >> its physics, etc. >> >> It is coherent with both AI, and the theory of evolution (which is >> already used on mechanism). >> >> Consciousness also get a role, as it provides semantic which accelerate >> the computation relatively to the universal machine which run the subject, >> allowing a greater number of degree of freedom. >> >> A very interesting video on the Limbic system, and its relation with >> emotion is here: >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAOnSbDSaOw >> >> Panpsychism assumes matter, making it inconsistent with digital mechanism >> (that is not obvious, ask for explanation if interested). >> But even without that still a bit ignored fact, panpsychism makes the >> functioning of the brain quite mysterious. With mechanism, consciousness is >> a mathematical semantic fixed point, related to the neural loops, whose >> importance is well illustrated in that video. >> >> Panpsychism has not yet a testable theory, which might change tomorrow, >> but again, it speculates on very strong axioms, which cannot be used to >> invalidate a much simpler theory, not yet contradicted by any facts. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> > consciousness is a mathematical semantic fixed point, related to the > neural loops > > It depends on what the meaning of "is" is. > > "is" could be a descriptive relationship, like a program of a tornado is > not a tornado. > > > No problem with this. > > > > But if tornados are just mental creations, > > > Mechanism does not implies this. Tornados are not ontologically real, but > they are phenomenologically real, and their existence depends in fine on > natural number relations, which are not mental creation, at least not human > mental creations. > > > > > where everything mental is a numerical fixed point, then all reality *is* > numerical simulation. > > > Consciousness and other semantical notion are fixed point of partially > computable functional. But most of arithmetic are not, unless you intent > them, but them it relies on fixed point of transformation in your brain, > which, as a phenomenological object, will be a fixed point at a different > level. It is hard to describe this without getting a bit more technical. I > might have some opportunity to explain more on this later. > > Bruno > >
It seems though that while I was referencing a material pan[propto]psychism - where elementary constituents of matter that ends up in an integrated brain have proto-experientiality - what you have is a *numerical pan[proto[psychism*, where there are elementary numeral constituents in things that are not brains that possess a proto-consciousness. (Even rocks of certain types have been shown to be a kind of signal processors.) If fact, a numerical reality reveals a panpsychism of a numerical nature even more explicitly than a material one. @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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a66d1826-6751-43be-97ab-763270aedaa1%40googlegroups.com.
