[FRIAM] Nick's Categories

[Steve Smith]

As the discussion evolves:
> But the bot *does* have a body. It just doesn't take the same form as 
> a human body.
>
> I disagree re: panpsychism revolving around "interest" or "intention" 
> ... or even "acting". It's more about accumulation and the tendency of 
> cumulative objects to accumulate (and differentiate). Perhaps 
> negentropy is a closer concept than "interest" or "intention". And, 
> although I disagree that experience monism is more primitive than 
> panpsychism, I agree that these forms of panpsychism require 
> mechanisms for composition (against which James is famous) and other 
> structure.

I re-introduce/offer Terrence Deacon's Teleodynamics 
<https://teleodynamics.org/> which I do not take to be (quite?) as 
difficult to integrate/think-about asSheldrake's Morphic Resonance 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake>

As with Torebeo's essay on BCS' OOO, Joanna Rączaszek‑Leonardi 
<https://c1dcs711.caspio.com/dp/6e93a00069a6c46c407e42c6b540/files/3503861>reviews 
<https://c1dcs711.caspio.com/dp/6e93a00069a6c46c407e42c6b540/files/3503861> 
Deacon's How Molecules Became Signs 
<https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12304-021-09453-9.pdf?pdf=button> 
giving me a hint of a bridge between the "dualistic" worlds (form V. 
substance or body V. mind) we banter about here a lot?

I found EricS's recent response very thought provoking, but every 
attempt I had to respond directly felt like more "stirring" so am 
holding off until/when/if I might actually be able to add coherent 
signal to the one I get hints of forming here...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20230220/4612a37a/attachment.html>