If you read the section of my book entitled "Other 'isms in Philosophy of the Mind", I examine the theory outlined earlier in the book (Theory of Nothing) to see how it fitted into Chalmer's 7 classifications of the theory of the mind.
I concluded that actually I held 6 out of the 7 positions simultaneously. I think it is quite possible to be both a dualist and a monist simultaneously. Even a hardcore materialist will admit that relationships between things (eg the angle made by crossing two spears) are distinctly nonmaterial things. Of course, YMMV. As for what a Turing machine may know, you could take a look at Bruno Marchal's theory, which is developed in terms of modal logic. His book I translated "Amoeba's Secret" is probably the gentlest introduction. Not sure what an English major might make of it though :). On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 12:45:43PM -0600, Nick Thompson wrote: > Dear Friammers, > > > > The subject line is the title of an article I am thinking about writing for > the > Annals of Geriatric Maundering, and I want your help. If you think that I am > offering you an opportunity to waste your time, in service of advancing my > career, you are, of course exactly correct. Some of you have accused me of > starting a fight on FRIAM when a good scholar would actually check out large, > heavy books from the library. That criticism is precise and apt. My excuse > is > I have two disabilities for true scholarship: my eyesight sucks, and I am > lazy. So, here we go. > > > > To be a monist is first and foremost to be NOT a dualist. The most familiar > form of dualism is the mind/body dualism, which is so embedded in our language > that it is hard to speak without depending on it. According to this dualism, > there are two kinds of stuff, mind and matter. Dualists like to talk about > the > interaction of these two kinds of stuff, and are delighted when they discover > isomorphisms between events in consciousness and events in the brain. They > like to discuss such topics as “information” and “representation”. Dualists > are fond of the subject object distinction, and are enthralled by the > mysteries > of “inner” states. They like to talk about inverted spectrums. They hail the > Privacy of Mind. Most of you are closet dualists. You LIKE to think you are > materialists, but if you were materialists you would have to be monists, and > you wouldn’t like that, as you will plainly see. I should confess that > dualists, particularly closet dualists, drive me crazy. Just sayin’. And as > I have assured you many times, I love you all anyway. In fact, probably would > have died years ago, if you had not kept me active. > > > > Dualists are flanked on one side by pluralists and on the other by monists. > Pluralists are plainly crazy, and, besides, I don’t know any, so we won’t > bother with pluralism. Monism is clearly the way to go. There are two > familiar kinds of monism: idealism and materialism. An idealist insists that > everything real consists of ideas and relations between ideas; a materialist > insists that everything real consists of matter and its relations. If you ask > an idealist about matter and s/he will say, “What is this “matter” of which > you > speak? All we have is ideas about matter. If you ask a materialist about > ideas, he will say, “What are these “ideas” of which you speak? Ideas are just > arrangements of matter” Of the two, I prefer materialism. It is easier for > me > to reduce ideas to relations amongst matter than it is to reduce matter to > relations among ideas. But neither of these forms of monism seem quite honest > to me, because each implies the other. To put it bluntly, realists and > materials are all closet dualists. > > > > The remaining option is “neutral” monism. Being a neutral monist is very hard > because people demand that you answer the question, “Of what does everything > real consist?” It is VERY hard to answer that question without becoming a > closet dualist. The answer requires some sort of noun (or gerund) and > therefore, any response implies its opposite or absence, and thus relapses > into > closet dualism. > > > > One possibility I have considered is “event monism” . Everything real > consists > of events and their relations. I like the concept of event because it does > not > conjure up its opposite or absence quite so relentlessly. What is a non-event > or the absence of an event, really? It’s an event in itself, right? We speak > of days when nothing happened, but we don’t really mean it. Something DID > happen; it just wasn’t very interesting. On the other hand, it does not > accommodate “relations” talk very well. > > > > A extreme solution is to take a kind of mathematical notational approach and > just go for the relations: “Everything that is real consists of [ ] and its > relations”; i.e., everything real consists of [[[[[[[[[ ]…]….]….] etc. ad > infinitum. In words, “Everything real consists of relations and their > relations. > > > > Neither of these solutions is very satisfying and both are rhetorically > ungainly. By default, have started to call myself as an “Experience > Monist”. > When people look at me slyly and ask, “Experience of what?” I say, “Of other > experiences”. And when they inevitably ask, “What was the first experience > of?”, I ask them , “How many first experiences were there?” After they say, > “One,” I ask. “And how many subsequent experiences have there been?” And when > they answer, “Oh, gosh, lots. Almost an infinite number.” I say, “Well, then > let’s deal with the first one after we have dealt with all the others, > mmmmm?” > You call this cheap sophistry, but I think the line of argument is fair > because > our obsession with “origins” (or “oranges”, for that matter) smacks of > theology, and I am thoroughly fed up with theology. “Let’s begin in the > middle,” I say, “And not spend so much time worrying about the beginning and > the end.” > > > > And now we get to the crazy bit, the part where I imagine that FRIAMmers might > help out. This conception of The Real always reminds me of a Turing Machine. > That I make this connection might seem odd to you. You might wonder what a > flunked-out Harvard English major is doing with thoughts about a Turing > Machine. Fair question. So how is it that I imagine a Turing Machine? > > > > A Turing Machine (in my imagination) is a device that is capable of only three > operations, punching a tape, moving a tape, and reading a tape. Uh, oh, I > need > a 4^th. I need it to be able to punch a tape and move a tape on the basis of > what it finds on the tape. Oh, gosh, I need a 5^th. I need there to be > punches on the tape NOT punched by the machine itself. Oh, and a 6^th: the > survival of the machine needs to depend on anticipating patterns on the tape > > > > OH CRAP! I THINK I JUST BECAME A DUALIST! > > > > > Has anybody written an article entitled, “What does the Turing Machine know?” > Would a flunked-out Harvard English Major understand it? Could you give me > the > link? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > > Clark University > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Senior Research Fellow hpco...@hpcoders.com.au Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
