<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">As the discussion evolves:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:2d37252b-ca47-8754-bcf6-4dbf18b5b3b4@gmail.com">But the
bot *does* have a body. It just doesn't take the same form as a
human body.
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>I re-introduce/offer Terrence Deacon's <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://teleodynamics.org/">Teleodynamics</a> which I do
not take to be (quite?) as difficult to integrate/think-about as<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake">
Sheldrake's Morphic Resonance </a></p>
<p>As with Torebeo's essay on BCS' OOO, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://c1dcs711.caspio.com/dp/6e93a00069a6c46c407e42c6b540/files/3503861"><span
style="color: rgb(32, 40, 43); font-size: 17px; font-style:
normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps:
normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align:
left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);
text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style:
initial; text-decoration-color: initial; display: inline
!important; float: none;">Joanna Rączaszek‑Leonardi </span></a><span
style="color: rgb(32, 40, 43); font-family: Georgia; font-size:
17px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal;
font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing:
normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-thickness:
initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color:
initial; display: inline !important; float: none;"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://c1dcs711.caspio.com/dp/6e93a00069a6c46c407e42c6b540/files/3503861">reviews</a>
Deacon's <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12304-021-09453-9.pdf?pdf=button">How
Molecules Became Signs</a> giving me a hint of a bridge
between the "dualistic" worlds (form V. substance or body V.
mind) we banter about here a lot?<br>
</span></p>
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...<br>
</body>
</html>