No doubt, and the cybernetic description of those animals corresponds nicely to our intuitions about levels of consciousness.
So one consequence of this way of looking at consciousness is that we can ascribe consciousness to things like corporations, cities, and cultures as a whole. Perhaps some will find that to be a reductio ad absurdum. I think it's really interesting to consider that cultures are conscious. It goes in the other direction, too. Cells in our body are conscious too, but we're not aware of them in the same way we're not aware of cultural consciousness. Consciousness, in this way of thinking, is a property of the whole system, not some reductive summation of the consciousnesses of its constituent parts. Terren On Sun, May 5, 2019, 2:15 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < [email protected]> wrote: > OK, I agree with that, but it's far from human consciousness. I think > there are quite a few distinct levels from a thermostat to a flatworm to > spider to a dog to a human. > > Brent > > On 5/4/2019 10:53 PM, Terren Suydam wrote: > > Yes, exactly. There's something it is like to be a thermostat. What is it > like? As a basic homeostatic model, with a single recursive element - the > dynamics are enough to create an ongoing stream of awareness of the state > of a single bit of information. > > On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 1:30 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> It appears to me that every system that has a function will have a >> cybernetic description, i.e. one that only mentions functional >> relationships but not the matter. I can imagine such a description of my >> thermostat: There's an element that changes with temperature and makes a >> connection below a certain temperature that energizes a source of >> heat...and so on. Right? >> >> Brent >> >> On 5/4/2019 8:26 PM, Terren Suydam wrote: >> >> The cybernetic description of a system is a description of a system's >> relationships, both internally in terms of the system's organization - how >> its components relate to each other functionally, and externally in terms >> of a system's functional relationship to its environment. A cybernetic >> description explicitly leaves out the materiality of the components - it's >> only about the relations. Therefore cybernetics is exclusively about >> information - the way a system creates/updates information about its >> environment, and how that information is processed as a function of the >> system's organization as a whole. >> >> What I'm saying is that for any system that has a cybernetic description >> (which can cover a very broad range of systems), there it is something it >> is like to be that system, which is to say a system that processes >> information in one form or another. A lot of this comes from the site >> Principia >> Cybernetica <http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/DEFAULT.html> which is a pretty >> expansive treatment of cybernetics. >> >> On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 2:55 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 5/4/2019 6:30 AM, Terren Suydam wrote: >>> >>> What I'm suggesting draws on both functionalism and identity theory. >>> It's functional in the sense that the constitutive aspect of cybernetics is >>> entirely functional. >>> >>> >>> So what is the function that makes a system "cybernetic" and is that >>> sufficient to make it conscious? >>> >>> Brent >>> >>> 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]> 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]. >>>> To post to this group, send email to [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]. >>> To post to this group, send email to [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]. >>> To post to this group, send email to [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]. >> To post to this group, send email to [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]. >> To post to this group, send email to [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]. > To post to this group, send email to [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]. > To post to this group, send email to [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]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
