want to acknowledge Glen’s formulation here, too, which is helpful and seems both reasonable to the point, and specific enough to explain why Mind and not just-any essentialism.
It’s interesting: I know just what people mean when they talk this way about computing’s universality (so, like Seth Lloyd here https://www.amazon.com/Programming-Universe-Quantum-Computer-Scientist/dp/1400033861 ). I would of course use the same language informally, but I would never use the same short-hand if I were trying to be careful about the ontological or epistemologial commitments entailed in things I was saying. To me (as I think to Glen), matter does what it does, and each whole thing is a completely good model only of itself (obviating the point of having a model). Relative to that, I would say if trying to speak carefully, that computing as an equivalence class of real, material phenomena, occupies some different category. The equivalence class is “the thing”. It is not meant to be a full identification with all of any of the phenomena, but rather a collection of signs, conventions for manipulating them, and programs for mapping them to patterns in particular phenomena, that can be integrated without contradictions. It is just their finiteness (or smallness of infinity) that makes a test for consistency possible, and that makes them _intentionally_ incomplete as models for any more-infinite actual phenomenon. There seem to be many things that have sort of an analogous status in this world of abstractions, as things brought into existence only when the world of abstracitons is brought into existence. “Number” seems of a similar kind to “having algorithmic structure”. It doesn’t seem to me like a closed question how we should refer to “their type”, but in a middle-out sort of way, it seems quite reasonable to grant them a different place in experience and cognition than many other categories. And of course, there is a long tedious harangue we can pursue describing them (what “number” “is”, and so forth). So it is much more than nothing, to put behind referring to them that way. Eric > On Feb 20, 2023, at 10:31 AM, glen <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: > > While I appreciate DaveW's historical ensconcing, I think there's a different > answer to EricS' question. When/if I feel generous to people who talk about > the mind and thinking, I liken it to computation, in the trans-computer sense > of portability ... the idea that you can run the same computation on > different machines. The essentialist tendency, in that seemingly small > domain, is well-exhibited by Turing's universal machines and, I think also, > the conception that reality is information (another monism, I guess). I even > see this in DaveW's attempt to reframe N=1 experimentation (scientific > introspection), as an attempt to discover just how *expressive* that > computation (someone's mind) can be. It's essentialism because it is a > feature of all possible worlds. Even if our universe had no humans or > animals, computation is still present. It's the only essence because it's the > only feature present in all possible worlds. > > My hitch, which prevents me from authentically playing that game, is that > semantics requires full grounding. There is no such thing as pure > portability. The same computation *cannot* occur on different machines. At > best, you can shoe horn equivalence classes, like "for all intents and > purposes, the DaveW computation is similar enough to the EricS computation", > whereas "the Scooter computation (my cat's thinking) is similar to the Dorian > computation (my other cat's thinking)". > > Of course, this all hinges on some particular, maybe perverse, understanding > of "computation". But it's a much more wranglable word than "mind". > > On 2/20/23 04:10, Santafe wrote: >> So there are things in DaveW’s very helpful post below about which I am >> genuinely curious. My tendency is to analyze them, though I have a certain >> habitual fear that asking a question in an analytic mode will come across as >> somehow disrespectful, and that is not my intent. >> The description below sounds to me very much like “essentialism”. If we >> have long human experience that water is wet, and if after many hundreds of >> millenia being human (and longer bring primates etc.) we take on some good >> reasons to describe water as being made of H2O molecules, the essentialist >> habit is to suppose (to take as a philosophical premise?) that there must be >> some attribute of wetness about each molecule, which is then amplified when >> many such molecules make the bulk that even ordinary people experience as >> water. (One could go on a branch and argue that special people also >> experience each individual molecule as itself and can attest to its wetness, >> and one could try to push the analogy that far, but I want to focus above on >> the essentialist premise as a kind of “mind-set background”.) >> One could be essentialist about really anything. The wetness of water, the >> hardness of rock, the warmness of air, the loyalty of friends, or pretty >> much anything that has syntax making such a construction possible. >> In the Mind community, is the central orientation a commitment to >> essentialism as a posture, or is essentialism only to be applied to whatever >> specifically comes under the scope of “mind”? >> If only mind is to be framed in this kind of essentialist ontology, why does >> it become the only attribute thus deserving to be framed as an essence? Of >> course, for me to ask that already expresses the point of view that the Mind >> community are arguing against: that people are a tiny and late corner in a >> large universe, and that all this conversation about Mind didn’t come into >> existence until they were there to generate it, which seems almost as tiny >> and niche as any particular one of Shakespeare’s plays. But to put the >> question that way is the only way I know to use language. > > -- > ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ > > -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,YaxRdDoA1szR79TSm5miSsbgBsa4PKlvADFm5qlmLvJKUHly22k9sqrCf6ZRxybnRZJ5IgtBz_9o29EQDYHgi-nIU6X_VlrdIEkY7gdDNOSNnw,,&typo=1 > to (un)subscribe > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,0ggPyTTKuzROTWGx10FpMhkiJvlNcnBwZagwcxQgt-PZRlauHP5ASUi4QMSpv4JamdE94UY5httFqandOwTL8uStKsUexgEhGCFl1DFUm-q3VRo,&typo=1 > FRIAM-COMIC > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,WVQPi6pqqqvzCdY1DwL3bs2gbTz35pVYKuNwnweJTNMHd4GMFo9F6jNK77wTi1sG4_GMTjhPE5DnqQrKu1DKB1sNHbltwjDbBs05FalZT-g0DwNxTvUTs4o,&typo=1 > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,xfXgeBMuH6TzwjYByhZqWA2Pn7-9vRiimlHby13WxQRvZxmFJ7PhGGgO48q6kfQW2p1z0TA6SU9gm6HPDwQykaV0ZdZfTvBkVSxcbXnrXdTcVyE,&typo=1 > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
