This seems right to me. I’m not confident that it’s going to be persuasive to people who don’t already have similar intuitions, but I hope so!
I think the idea here is broadly resonant with Infra-Bayesian Physicalism (where algorithms have a distinguished ontological status—and this alone explains subjective experience), and I’m curious if @Diffractor and @Vanessa_Kosoy agree.
I particularly liked this part:
The real proof that the non-hard-questioners weren’t really understanding the actual solution is that they failed to see the implication that everything that exists is conscious…
As I’ve said, this doesn’t mean that everything has a mind, or pain/pleasure, agency, value, etc.
Non-panpsychists are confused because they think that surely all qualia are necessarily each hosted by some distinct, self-aware being.
Panpsychists are confused because they don’t make enough distinctions and are compelled to attribute “tiny but nonzero” amounts of valence to any subsystem of physicality.
This seems right to me. I’m not confident that it’s going to be persuasive to people who don’t already have similar intuitions, but I hope so!
I think the idea here is broadly resonant with Infra-Bayesian Physicalism (where algorithms have a distinguished ontological status—and this alone explains subjective experience), and I’m curious if @Diffractor and @Vanessa_Kosoy agree.
I particularly liked this part:
which reminded me of my own statements that