From: Ben Goertzel (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Jan 11 2004 - 09:45:09 MST
> Sorry, I don't think that Metaqualia explained panpsychism well
> at all when
> he quoted Hans Moravec; what you're talking about above (and in Moravec's
> quote) is more like some kind of "quantum mysticism" than panpsychism. I
> consider myself a panpsychist at the moment, and all I mean by asserting
> this is that I believe all things have qualia to a certain extent.
> My current working hypothesis is that the complexity and richness
> of qualia
> corresponds directly to the complexity of the algorithm.
Yes! this is pretty much exactly what I meant when i called myself a
Thanks for the very clear expression ;_)
The big question is: What is the right definition of "complexity" here?
That will only come out of a theory that crosses the experiential and
physical perspectives on mind ... i.e. a type of theory that we don't really
have it ... but presumably will have one day...
-- Ben G
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:45 MDT