On 1/31/2020 2:34 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
Physicalism entails a non Mechanist theory of Mind, but Physics never
address the problem of consciousness/matter, and is based on no
evidence available. Again, I think it is better to test simpler theory
before jumping to magical conclusion…
I try hard to find some sense to “panpsychism” which would be coherent
with Mechanism (Darwin & Co.). The close I could imagine is that the
arithmetical truth would have some consciousness, but then it has to
be something rather weird.
Only person are conscious. Consciousness is just knowledge, and
knowledge is just true belief.
That seems plainly false. You're arguing with phil because you think he
has a false belief. Do you conclude he is not conscious when he thinks
of this belief?
Physical consciousness is more: it is belief + truth + consistency
(that makes it “immediate” indubitable” and keep intact its
undefinability (that we feel when we introspect ourselves).
If only it were so.
This also has many consequences like explaining “free-will”, providing
a functional role to consciousness, and a general role in the
selection of the computational histories (but those are not related:
free-will is NOT that selection!).
It provides also an objective theory of morality (or more general
Protagorean virtue), but the theory is “negative”. It says that it is
immoral to do moral.
It's immoral to act morally? If your theory entails that I'd say you've
reached a reductio.
Brent
It explains that a religious or moral sermon leads to the contrary
effects, and explain why the institutionalisation of religion/moral
leads to Atheism and Suffering (a point rather well explained by the
Marquis de Sade, up to make him doubt at some point of atheism, as
Sade realise that if the goal is to make people suffering: the
institutionalisation of religion gives the better tool for doing this.
You can recognise the laws of “Wellcome to insecurity” by Lan Watts,
but also single out by the Taoists (Lie-tseu notably) and which all
have the shape []x -> ~x. Of course in theology (G) we have already a
pretty simple solution:
[]<>t -> ~<>t
If I prove my consistency then I am inconsistent. Consistency is a
sort of abstract ancestor of all moral virtue, and somehow, morality
is related to surviving.
People are attached to matter, and they are right, if they want to
keep up its existence, you need to reject mechanism. But Mechanism
explain both consciousness (and qualia, …) and the “matter appearance”,
May be if you decide that number are God’s object of thought, that is
“ideal object”, then mechanism is a panpsychism, but that does not
teach us anything new, and it is better to avoid metaphysics at the
level of the numbers, given that we are using the numbers to define
all the rest and formulate the metaphysical question.
What *is* coherent here (not with Mechanism, but with the “fundamental
result” (that Mechanism and Materialism are incompatible), is the
search for pretty weird theory of mind, when you want keep an
ontological matter).
Bruno
--
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/09833334-4632-bbef-6eb9-e2dd44f09d33%40verizon.net.
