[FRIAM] Nick's Categories

[glen]

[sigh] But the whole point of knowing other people is so that they can make your own work more efficient or effective. While I appreciate the *citation* of tomes, to some extent, citation isn't really useful for construction of a concept. It's only useful for auditing constructs. So, rather than go read the teleodynamics website (or sieve Sheldrake's spooky action at a distance stuff), I'll ask you to explain *why* teleodynamics is interesting from a panpsychist stance? (Or to drive my point home about how useless citations are, how is it related to Biology's First Law <https://bookshop.org/p/books/biology-s-first-law-the-tendency-for-diversity-and-complexity-to-increase-in-evolutionary-systems-daniel-w-mcshea/8308564?ean=9780226562261>?)

Or, barring that, I'll add it to my (practically) infinite queue of stuff I should read but probably won't until I have a hook into it. And even if I do read it, I probably won't understand it.

With the Toribio article, I'm motivated to read it because BC Smith hooked me a long time ago. But Sheldrake? No way in hell am I going to invest time in that. Teleodynamics? Well, it's a website. And the website for ninjas is more interesting: http://www.realultimatepower.net/index4.htm

On 2/20/23 10:10, Steve Smith wrote:
> 
> 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...


-- 
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ