X-Message-Number: 8103 Date: 18 Apr 97 01:11:14 EDT From: "Robert C. Ettinger" <> Subject: CRYONICS Wheelness, Panpsychism Wheelness, Panpsychism: Some info folk have tried to ridicule my implied contention that every feature of a system must have a "seat" in the system or its functions, whether distributed or not. (Their aim is to dismiss the necessity for the search for the seat of feeling, the self circuit.) They have repeatedly invoked the "absurdity" of looking for a "seat of car-ness" in automobiles. We'll get back to autos in a bit; let's start with something simpler, the wheel, as in wagon-wheel etc. Of course a wheel is just a collection of atoms, and its wheelness is an emergent property of the system, of the atoms collectively and not individually. The info folk are right in this--nothing profound or difficult in the concept. But the POINT is that wheelness is a definite, specific, easily discerned, esily described, and easily understood property. We do NOT just wave the magic wand of "emergence" and claim that makes all problems disappear. Instead, we note that the main feature of a wheel is that it rolls, and this is related to its roundness in its main plane, ideally its circularity. A circle is easily described and understood, nothing mysterious or mystical about it. We have not dodged the issue or laid a smoke screen or hollered "Emergence!" Instead we have FOUND the seat of wheelness, pinned it down in terms easily understood. The seat of wheelness is in the circularity of the wheel (mainly; there must also be a certain cohesiveness of the atoms etc.). "Car-ness" is a concept less clear-cut; there is a less clear distinction between "cars" and "non-cars." Nevertheless, we could proceed the same way with "car-ness" as with"wheelness" and find a reasonably clear and concise way to assign "car-ness" to appropriate parts/functions of the auto....Of course, there is no particular NEED to look for a "seat of car-ness;" the concept is handled well enough implicitly. We know how cars work; there isn't a problem. With consciousness and feeling, there IS a problem. We do NOT know the nature or origin of feeling or its offshoot, consciousness. But we very much NEED to know, because it is the most important (although not necessarily the profoundest or most difficult) of all scientific problems. The importance arises from the fact that our subjective experiences (feeling and all that arises therefrom) are what give us life as we know it, the capacity for enjoyment or suffering with all their variations and gradations. Here also is the origin of values, hence life strategies. At extremes of info-freakery (sorry), on the other hand, we find denial of any need to seek a seat of feeling; feeling and consciousness are claimed just to "emerge" from almost any system, so there and forget it. Even Dr. Perry has said that MAYBE ("maybe" emphasized to acknowledge his caution) even a thermostat has some kind or some degree of feeling. The most extreme pan-psychists say that even an atom has its own little consciousness. Most casual readers will find it odd that anyone should argue at length to show that a thermostat isn't conscious. However, the info people include some of the brightest and best, and we do need to straighten them out--especially to rule out the possibility that WE need straightening out. We also need to inspire the experimentalists a bit in their search for the seat of feeling, this search being so far mostly without any clear understanding that qualia represent a separate and distinct problem from those of sensory signal transmission and computation and storage. Robert Ettinger Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8103