On 1/30/2020 9:59 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 11:26:09 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
On 1/30/2020 1:28 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 at 6:17:11 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
On 1/29/2020 11:55 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
Now the human brain IP-power is like 10^whatever times that
of a rock.
Is it? A rock has a lot of atoms that can be a lot of
states, like 1e30. Maybe it has to do with connections and
signals and sensors and environment. Not IIT.
Also, a human brain has more IP-power than that of a chimp -
its language ability shows that.
And your computer has more arithmetical ability than you do.
Brent
If a rock has more information processing power than a brain, and
if consciousness is information processing (a lot of it) then why
isn't a rock conscious?
But a rock isn't conscious!
According to panpsychists (and maybe IIT) it is.
Brent
from Ph.D. Thesis - Hedda Hassel Mørch
https://www.newdualism.org/papers/H.Morch/Morch-dissertation-Oslo2014.pdf
What do defenders of panpsychism normally mean when they say that
everything is mental? It seems generally agreed upon that the “pan” of
“panpsychism” requires that mentality is to be attributed to at least
every fundamental and concrete thing, in addition to humans and other
animals. Being concrete means being non-abstract, perhaps in virtue of
being spatiotemporal, so numbers and other abstract objects are
excluded from the thesis. The fundamental concrete entities are often
taken to include at least the ultimate particles of physics, but to
exclude most ordinary objects like tables, chairs and rocks.
Therefore, panpsychism does not require that such ordinary objects
[like tables, chairs and *rocks*] have mentality
Right. Having solved the problem of where mentality comes from by
simply asserting it's inherent in everything, then panspychism was faced
with the problem that ordinary objects were obviously not conscious
(Aaronson's common sense critereon). So this solved that asserting that
only special arrangements of fundamental particles are conscious.
Panpsychists haven't been able to say exactly which arrangements are
conscious but some people are betting in brains.
Brent
(as emphasized by Strawson [Realistic Monism*]. The same goes for more
esoteric objects sometimes considered by philosophers, such as
undetached rabbit parts or the set of my nose and the planet Venus
(however, see Goff (forthcoming) for an argument to the contrary).
Such presumably non-fundamental things can be regarded as mental only
in virtue of having mental parts or constituents, i.e., in the same
indirect way that we ordinary think of a society of people as having
mentality.
*
http://www.sjsu.edu/people/anand.vaidya/courses/c2/s0/Realistic-Monism---Why-Physicalism-Entails-Panpsychism-Galen-Strawson.pdf
@philipthfit
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6fbdeae4-1489-44d9-9288-277df284b5bc%40googlegroups.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6fbdeae4-1489-44d9-9288-277df284b5bc%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
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/2429c6da-998f-15d9-c114-5a13707821af%40verizon.net.
