On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 7:02:37 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 13 Sep 2019, at 13:11, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com <javascript:>> > wrote: > > >> >> 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. >> >> >> Mechanism assumes only the natural numbers with their laws of addition >> and multiplication (or Turing equivalent like S and K + the application >> laws). >> >> There is no consciousness in numbers. Consciousness relies on complex >> Turing universal number relations, which can be proved to exist (in >> elementary arithmetic), and which describes a non trivial discourse on the >> par of the machine, including the physical discourse, making Mechanism >> refutable (but confirmed up to now). >> >> Rock simply do not exist per se. They belong to appearances emerging from >> long computational histories and their first person statistics. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> > > Consciousness relies on complex Turing universal number relations, which > can be proved to exist (in elementary arithmetic), and which describes a > non trivial discourse on the par of the machine, including the physical > discourse, making Mechanism refutable (but confirmed up to now). > > > This universality of this consciousness in this "arithmetical reality" > (whatever it's called) is on a par with panpsychism in a material reality. > (It just appears to me.) > > > I am not sure. An arithmetical version of panpsychism would assert that > all numbers think, when actually, the thinking is only in sufficiently > complex number relations. Then materialism makes this worst, if I can say, > by introducing some “inert substance” as matter is called sometimes, and > endow it with thinking, which seems mysterious (how could “inert matter” > think?). And Mechanism aggravates the position of materialism by throwing > some doubt about the primary ontological nature of matter. > > Thinking is essentially dynamical and relational, even for the part > requiring consciousness, despite this one is related to both the dynamics > (captured by the provability predicate) and truth (which is admittedly > statical). > > There are interesting argument that bacteria and plant are already > thinking and perhaps conscious. Like there are interesting argument that > machines can think. Once we accept Panpsychism, those arguments do no more > make sense, as everything is thinking. That gives a situation where we can > believe that machine are thinking, and still say no to the doctor, because > the machine might be able to think just because it is made of matter, which > is completely changed with an artificial digital brain. > > If I change the blade of my knife, and then the handle, did my knife > survived? > > If everything is thinking/conscious, what is the difference between > someone alive and a corpse? > > Bruno > >
The claim of panprotopsychism* is not that simple material (or in this case, arithmetical) entities think, but they manifest the (proto-thinking) ingredients that when combined into more complex entities think. * Basically all the current proponents of panpsychism are of the "proto" variety, and all reject the accusation that they are saying everything thinks. (And I guess some on the anti-panpsychism side would say that dogs or cats, which could be true, don't think, or that human thinking is an illusion.) But no matter how many (Goff, Strawson, Morch, ...) say this, no critic listens. @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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0e8d07f0-58a7-462d-8d12-055db9951ccf%40googlegroups.com.
